6th Pipeline Technology Conference 2011

High Resolution Ultrasonic In-Line Inspection: Added Value and Special

Applications
A. Barbian, M. Beller, S. Hartmann, U. Schneider
NDT Systems & Services AG
76297 Stutensee
Germany

Abstract:

The use of in-line inspection tools is today a standard procedure regarding the
maintenance of high pressure pipelines. Inspection tools utilizing ultrasound
technology have been successfully used for close to 20 years now and have proven
themselves regarding their reliability, measurement accuracy and robustness of the
data collected.
Over the years, the capabilities of this class of tools have been extended and today a
large variety of special tool configurations are available to address the multitude of
inspection requirements the pipeline industry has.
This paper will provide an overview of some of these special configurations of high
resolution ultrasonic tools that have been developed based on customer needs.
Examples will be shown from a variety of case studies, describing the added value
that the use of these tools provide.
The effect of increased resolution and measurement accuracy will be discussed and
its impact on integrity assessment.
The examples covered include combination tools for metal loss and crack inspection,
multi-technology tools for the inspection of gas pipelines, special configurations for
the use in a high wax content environment, and finally the inspection for pitting and
small localized corrosion features.

1 Introduction
With a worldwide aging pipeline infrastructure and increasing economical and
regulatory constraints for pipeline operators, pipeline integrity issues are an area of
increasing relevance. In many countries of the world pipeline regulations not only
demand inspections or monitoring of structural integrity at certain intervals, but a
continuous process of verification of pipeline integrity and fitness-for-purpose. In-line
inspections complemented by other inspection techniques applied externally are
today the method of choice for these inspection requirements. Many regulations
recommend or even demand the use of intelligent pigs [1, 2]. The use of these tools
provides an effective and efficient way to inspect large length of pipelines within
reasonably short time spans.
The purpose of an in-line inspection is the detection, sizing and location of flaws and
defects within the pipe wall. In other words, the determination of geometric
dimensions, which in turn are used as input for the codes applied for integrity
assessment.
There is a huge choice of inline inspection (ILI) tools on the market today. Useful
information can be found in the literature [3, 4] and is regularly published in the
industry journals.
The following three diagrams provide a short overview regarding the in-line
inspection technologies currently commercially available and the inspection missions
that can be covered.

The most widely performed inspections relate to geometry inspection, metal loss and
lately also crack inspections.

A trend in the industry, mainly driven by developments in electronics and increase in

the number of individual channels that these units can record is the combination of
technologies. Two terms widely used today are "Combo-Tools" and "Multi-
Technology Tools":

The information provided by ILI tools basically consists of geometric data regarding a
flaw or anomaly found, namely:
 length (how long is a flaw from beginning to end, extent in the direction of the
pipe?)
 depth (how deep is a flaw, deepest point?)
 width (how wide is a flaw, circumferential extent?)
  circumferential position (orientation, o´clock position of a flaw?)
 longitudinal position (where along the line is the flaw?)
 pipeline route (where is the pipeline and was there any change in position?)
This data is then used to analyze the integrity of a line. Integrity assessment and
fitness-for-purpose investigations in turn play an important role in defining and
optimizing maintenance and possible rehabilitation procedures. Two extremely
important issues within this context are the defect specifications (probability of
detection, probability of identification) achieved and the question of measurement
accuracy (confidence level).

2 Technologies Applied for Metal Loss and Corrosion Inspection

This paper will not address geometric inspection and mapping, but will focus mainly
on metal loss and corrosion inspection, the most widely performed inspection type.
The well proven technologies applied for metal loss and corrosion inspections today
are magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and ultrasound (UT). Both technologies are based
on different physical principles, both with their individual characteristics. This paper
will not add to the published comparisons of magnetic flux leakage versus ultrasound
technologies, but will address different configurations of ultrasound tools available
today.
Some publications refer to three non-destructive testing technologies being applied
for metal loss and crack inspection, namely magnetic flux leakage, ultrasound and
EMAT (where EMAT actually stands for electro-magnetic transducers). This is not
quite right, because EMAT is really just another means of inducing ultrasound,
basically an alternative to using the well known piezo-electric transducers.

Figure 1: Ultrasound principle for wall thickness measurement

Figure 1 depicts the ultrasound principle most widely used for metal loss inspection
and quantitative wall thickness measurement. A sufficient number of ultrasound
probes must be used to ensure full circumferential coverage of the pipe. Here, one
piezo-electric transducer is sketched at two locations. The transducer sends out a
short pulse of ultrasonic energy which is initially reflected from the internal surface of
the pipe wall. The ultrasonic signal is not an individual arrow, but a wave front of
acoustic energy. Part of this signal will be reflected; the remainder will enter the wall
and be reflected from the outer surface of the pipe, the back wall. The electronics of
the tool will precisely measure the time of flight. As the speed of sound of the medium
in the pipe and also the pipe wall are known and constant, the time of flight will
provide quantitative values for the stand-off distance between sensor and internal
wall, as well as the wall thickness. Any changes in stand-off and wall thickness
readings will clearly identify internal metal loss; any changes in wall thickness only
will identify external metal loss. In addition, ultrasound can detect and size mid wall
features such as laminations and inclusions.
The draw back is that piezo-electric transducers require a liquid medium. This liquid
is present in oil or products lines, but not in gas pipelines for instance. The liquid is
needed to ensure that a sufficiently strong ultrasonic signal enters the wall. In a gas
environment too much energy is lost and a meaningful measurement cannot be
achieved.
However, this predicament can be overcome by using a methodology to induce the
ultrasonic signal directly in the wall to be inspected, EMAT. Figure 2 shows the
simplified principle.

Figure 2: EMAT-working principle

Another flaw type which can significantly affect the integrity of a line is a crack or
material separation. Due to the loading conditions present in pipelines - from a stress
analysis perspective they are actually pressure vessels with a cylindrical geometry -
they are in most cases orientated in a longitudinal direction - along the axis of the
pipe - and grow in a radial direction, parallel to the ultrasonic beam depicted in figure
1. As they are parallel, they would not cause a reflection and therefore would be
"invisible". For this reason it is necessary to search for cracks with an ultrasonic
beam travelling under an angle, as shown in figure 3. A crack will now reflect the
signal and can be detected reliably.
 Figure 3: Ultrasound principle for crack inspection

3 Typical Thresholds
Table 1 shows typical thresholds regarding the depth sizing of metal loss for different
in-line inspection tools. This means any feature or flaw in the pipe wall must have a
minimum depth in order to be picked up by the inspection tool utilized. Typical values
regarding the minimum defect diameters a feature must have in order to be detected
and sized by a magnetic flux leakage tool are between 1 and 3 x t (MFL-tools usually
relate defect specifications to the wall thickness (t) of the line being inspected). For a
10 mm wall thickness this would mean 30 mm. A typical industry specification for
high resolution ultrasound tools is a minimum depth of 0.5 mm, with a minimum
surface diameter of 20 mm. Detection only can usually be achieved for smaller
surface diameters. Some magnetic flux leakage tools state 1 x t, and ultrasonic tools
10 mm.

Tool Type MFL high MFL extra high UT high UT pitting

resolution resolution resolution configuration
General Metal Loss
Minimum depth > 10 % t >5%t 0.5 mm 0.5 mm
of feature to usually valid for
ensure detection internal metal
loss.
Pitting Corrosion
Minimum depth > 20 % t > 10 % t 1.5 mm 1.5 mm
of feature to usually valid for for minimum for minimum
ensure detection internal metal feature dia- feature dia-
loss. meter of 10 meter of 5
mm mm
where t = wall thickness.
Table 1: Typical minimum defect specification for different tool types
Only recently have ultrasonic tools entered the market which offer full depth sizing
capabilities starting from a depth of 0.4 mm with a surface diameter of 10 mm, and
detection without depth sizing starting from a surface diameter of 5 mm.

4 The Three Dimensions of Resolution

The term resolution is most widely used in relation to depth measurement in the
context of metal loss surveys, i.e. relating to the question of how precisely a given
tool can resolve the depth of a flaw. Another critical issue is the ability of a tool to
reliably detect the actual deepest point of a metal loss feature.
However, it has to be noted that resolution is an issue of all three dimensions, e.g.
depth, axial size (length of feature along the pipe) and width (circumferential extent of
feature).
 Axial Resolution and Circumferential Resolution
Measurements taken by an in-line inspection tool basically supply a grid of
measurement points taken. The actual area that a sensor covers will ensure that
there is overlap from sensor to sensor, thus ensuring full coverage of the pipe wall.
A standard value in the industry regarding axial resolution is approximately 3 mm, i.e.
taking a reading every 3 mm along the axial direction of the pipe. For an average
speed of 1 m/s during the inspection this value relates to a pulse repetition frequency
of 300 Hz. The term “pulse repetition frequency” relates to the number of times the
ultrasound transducer switches from emitting to receiving a signal per second.
The number of samples taken can be raised, for example by increasing the pulse
repetition frequency, whilst retaining the same inspection speed (e.g. 600 Hz at a
speed of 1 m/s would result in an axial sampling of 1.67 mm or 3.3 mm at 2 m/s).
Latest generation ultrasonic tools are available which can offer a 0.75 mm sampling
(i.e. one measurement taken every 0.75 mm). Advanced electronics also allow for
survey speeds to be increased to approximately 2.5 m/s.
Most ultrasonic tools on the market relate to the resolution 3 mm in the axial direction
and approximately 8 mm in the circumferential direction. This configuration is often
referred to as “high resolution”, making use of the same term also used for magnetic
flux leakage tools.
 Depth Resolution vs. Accuracy
The depth resolution of an inspection tool indicates which precision the depth
measurement can achieve. It is not to be mistaken with the depth sizing accuracy,
which is a value defined by the operator of the tool and which is usually stated in the
defect specification sheet. An important aspect in depth sizing accuracy is to consider
whether a measurement technique provides quantitative depth measurement
characteristics or qualitative ones. Ultrasound is an example of a quantitative wall
thickness measurement technique. Wall thickness, and in the case of metal loss,
remaining wall thickness, can be measured directly in mm. The accuracy is
determined by the hardware capabilities of the tool, e.g. sensor design, electronics.
Resolution relates to the quality of the measurement. The better the resolution an
inspection tool can achieve the greater its ability to precisely measure the depth
contour of a given flaw or defect.
The issue of resolution and its effect on integrity assessment is discussed in more
detail in [5].
5 A Word on Localized Metal Loss and Pitting Corrosion
Regarding the depth sizing accuracy of ultrasound tools, it is also important to
understand that an average value of wall thickness is determined regarding the time
of flight (i.e. time taken until an emitted ultrasonic signal returns to the transducer) for
all reflections received for a given sensor covering a specific area. A transducer with
an emitting diameter of 10 mm will cover a greater area than, say, a 6 mm sensor.
The true actual area covered will further depend on whether the transducers used are
focused or not, see figure 4.

Figure 4: Unfocused vs. focused ultrasonic transducer

The upper figure shows how the cylindrical beam of acoustic energy covers a much
wider area of the pipe wall than the focused probe in the lower figure.
The geometries and specifications of the ultrasonic transducers used in the industry
determine the minimum defect specifications attainable. Typical industry values for
the detection of metal loss features start from a feature diameter of 10 mm and depth
sizing capabilities starting from feature diameters of 20 mm. These values were the
reason why ultrasonic tools were considered less suitable for pitting inspection
compared to magnetic flux leakage tools for a long time.
Today, modern configurations of ultrasonic in-line inspection tools are available which
can achieve detection thresholds for metal loss starting from a surface diameter of 5
mm, with full depth sizing capabilities starting from 10 mm surface diameter. The
advantage over magnetic flux leakage is that these new configurations of tools
provide quantitative sizing for the depth of pitting corrosion and the remaining wall.
These configurations make use of a closer sensor spacing in the circumferential
direction of the pipe and higher pulse repetition frequencies enhancing the axial
resolution, resulting in a more highly resolving grid.
Due to the optimized sensor carrier design used for pitting inspection, the
circumferential spacing of the sensors was decreased to 3.7 mm for the tool
considered here. The axial sampling can be increased from 3 mm to 1.5 mm (i.e. one
reading taken every 1.5 mm along the pipe axis) or even to 0.75 mm.
Figure 5 shows as an example the various UT sensor plate layouts for standard high
resolution, enhanced resolution and pitting resolution.

Figure 5: Sensor Plate Layout

In general it can be said that the more readings a tool can take for a given area
inspected, the better. If only a relatively small number of readings (i.e. samples) can
be taken for a given area, the effect of any spurious signal will be much larger than if
a higher number of readings can be obtained.
Increasing the resolution will of course result in a higher total number of sensors used
and therefore number of electronic channels the in-line inspection tool needs to
provide, in order to secure full circumferential coverage of the pipe surface. The great
advantage is that such a "pitting"-resolution tool provides reliable detection and sizing
of local metal loss, such as pitting corrosion, with the precision and confidence level
of an ultrasound tool.
Table 2 provides a rough guide regarding the capabilities of different tool types
available regarding the detection and sizing of localized metal loss and pitting
corrosion.
According to the POF Standard [6], the geometrical parameters of anomalies are
length "L", width "W", depth "d" and reference wall thickness “t”. The parameter A is
used for the geometrical classification of the anomalies detected by a tool. This
parameter is needed for pipes with t<10 mm. The geometrical parameter A is linked
to the NDE methods in the following manner:
 If t < 10 mm then A = 10 mm
 If t ≥ 10 mm then A = t
 High MFL & UT High Pitting
Resolution combination Resolution Configuration
MFL1 tools2 UT3 UT4
Feature surface dimension: 10 mm by 10 mm; wall thickness (t): 10 mm
detection x x x x
only
depth sizing x
quantitative x x x
wall
thickness
measurement
Feature surface dimension: 10 mm by 10 mm, wall thickness (t): 20 mm
detection x x x
only
depth sizing x
quantitative x x
wall
thickness
measurement
* definition according to POF.
Table 2: Detection and sizing capabilities regarding localized metal loss
(pitting) for different in-line inspection tool types.

Pitting is defined in said document as a feature having a surface area of less than 2A
x 2A. A feature as small as 0.5A x 0.5A is termed "pin hole" type feature. Applying
these defect specifications means that the new generation of ultrasound tools with
pitting configuration can offer detection and sizing capabilities for pitting and pin hole
type features.

6 Special Configurations

6.1 Combining Metal Loss and Crack Inspection

In the past, metal loss and crack inspections had to be performed completely
separate of each other. Mainly due to developments in electronics and the ability to
incorporate more and more recording channels, it is now possible to combine both
these inspection tasks. The major advantages are that both inspections missions can
be carried out in a single tool run, with considerable savings regarding all operational

1
Typical minimum defect specification reported in industry for magnetic flux tools is t x t, detection
only; depth sizing starting from 2t x 2t.
2
combines high resolution MFL and UT.
3
Typical minimum defect specification reported in industry for ultrasonic high resolution is 20 mm x 20
mm for depth sizing and 10 x 10 mm for detection only.
4
Typical minimum defect specification reported in industry for ultrasonic pitting corrosion tools is 10
mm x 10 mm for depth sizing and 5 mm x 5 mm for detection only.
aspects of an in-line inspection, e.g. only one cleaning program instead of two, one
run of the inspection tool, metal loss and crack data can be correlated with high
precision.
Figure 6a shows one of the sensor plates used by such a tool combining transducers
arranged at right angles at the wall to be inspected as well transducers fixed at an
angle to the wall, resulting in the ultrasonic signal travelling under a 45 0 within the
pipe wall.
Figure 6b shows the launch of a 40" tool combining metal loss and crack inspection.
Further information can be found in [7,8].

Figure 6: a. sensor plate, b. 40" tool prior to launching

6.2 Multi-Technology Tool for the Quantitative Wall Thickness Measurement

in Gas Pipelines
Gas pipelines are traditionally inspected with MFL tools. The major advantages of
ultrasonic tools, namely the ability to perform precise quantitative wall thickness
inspections, recording the true river bottom profile - contour of an anomaly - being
able to detect and size mid-wall anomalies in addition to internal and external ones
and the ability to detect hydrogen induced cracking could only be made use of, if the
tool is run in a suitable liquid batch. For operational reasons, as well as cost reasons,
this is often not feasible.
The need for a liquid batch can however be overcome by using an alternative method
to induce the ultrasonic signal into the pipe wall. As shown earlier in this paper, this
can be achieved by utilizing electro-magnetic acoustic transducers (EMAT). Figure 7
shows a multi-technology tool utilizing EMAT as well as magnetic flux leakage and
eddy current technologies to provide the precision and accuracy of ultrasound for gas
pipelines.
The reason for utilizing additional non destructive technologies is a limitation of
EMAT based on its working principle. As the ultrasound wave is generated at the
surface of the pipe wall to be inspected, the distance between the transducer and the
internal surface cannot be measured. This implies that internal corrosion cannot be
sized. This is overcome by using eddy current technology which is very sensitive for
detecting and sizing internal flaws, or rather near bound flaws.
 Figure 7: Launch of multi-technology tool in a 42" gas pipeline

6.3 Special Tool Configuration for Liquid Lines with High Wax Content
Offshore crude oil lines often have high contents of wax being present, deposited on
the pipe wall or transported with the flow. The presence of this wax can seriously
affect the performance of a chosen in-line inspection tool and lead to a dramatic
deterioration of the quality of the inspection data, thus endangering the purpose of
the inspection and leading to waste of time and money. Significant amounts of wax or
paraffin deposits can still be in a line, even after lengthy and careful cleaning. Issues
such as the pour point can lead to wax falling out of the oil, immediately after a
cleaning run, making it next to impossible to achieve a completely clean wall prior to
launching an intelligent inspection tool.
Based on the analysis of available data regarding previous tool performance,
operational parameters and procedures, a tool modification program was initiated by
a large offshore operator to design a special ultrasonic tool configuration, optimized
for the inspection in a heavy wax environment.

Figure 8: Wax built up on sensor carrier

The major issues which had to be addressed from the tool design side were the
sensor carrier and the odometer wheels. Fig. 8 shows a sensor carrier being clogged
up by wax. Here the ultrasonic signal would disperse resulting in echo loss.
Fig. 9 shows the modified sensor carrier after the run in a heavy wax line. As can be
seen the modifications led to the tool coming out in a much "cleaner" state, ensuring
that the sensors were able to pick up good quality signals.

Figure 9: Modified sensor carrier; clean after run in high wax content line

The odometer information is of critical importance in order to locate and length size
any anomaly found. In a heavy wax environment the odometer can slip, leading to
erroneous information. Again after special modifications to the wheel, slippage could
be reduced to a tolerable amount. Further information can be found in [9].

6.4 Detection and Sizing of Localized Corrosion and Pitting

6.4.1 Local Corrosion: Detecting and Identifying The Deepest Point

Figure 10a shows a screenshot of a localized corrosion feature (surface diameter
less than 20 mm) detected with a specially configured ultrasonic tool using a 5.5 mm
circumferential sensor spacing. The metal loss was clearly detected and sized. The
B-Scan of the ultrasonic data shows a corrosion feature with a maximum depth of 9
mm. Figure 10b shows the same feature detected and sized with a tool using a
standard industry configuration. The depth sizing delivered a value of 4.6 mm. Both
configurations have performed to within their specifications, but show the effect of
sensor spacing with regard to the detection and sizing of small area metal loss. Even
smaller features will be detected and sized reliably with a tool using a pitting
configuration and a 3.7 mm circumferential spacing.
 Figure 10a,b: Improved depth sizing capability for localized metal loss and
pitting corrosion with a surface area of less than 20 mm by 20 mm
This screenshot nicely shows the importance of resolution with the regard to the
sizing of localized metal loss, such as pitting corrosion.

6.4.2 Localized Corrosion in Girth Weld

Figures 11a shows the screenshot of the data obtained for a 12" product pipeline with
a wall thickness range from approximately 6 to 8 mm. The inspection identified a
localized metal loss feature within the girth weld zone. The detection and sizing of
this type of flaw requires a pitting resolution or at least an enhanced resolution above
the normal industry standard. For this inspection the axial resolution of the tool was
set to 1.5 mm (i.e. 1 reading taken by each sensor every 1.5 mm in the axial
direction) and approximately 4 mm for the circumferential resolution. Figure 11b
shows a photograph of the feature, after the feature had been verified and the pipe
had been excavated. The dimensions of the feature found were 15 x 56 mm.
 Figure 11a: Screenshot of inspection data for localized metal loss feature in
girth weld

Figure 11b: Localized metal loss feature in girth weld

7 Conclusions
In-line inspection tools provide important data regarding the flaws and anomalies
detected in a pipeline wall. This data, comprising of geometric information regarding
the length, width, depth and location of flaws and anomalies are critical input for
integrity assessment and subsequent effective planning of repair and rehabilitation
measures.
Modern integrity assessment codes benefit from higher levels of inspection data
quality, especially with regard to accuracy and resolution. Ultrasonic in-line inspection
tools provide these accuracies and confidence levels as well as quantitative
measurement capabilities, allowing for a less conservative assessment.
Latest generation ultrasonic tools with special pitting configurations widen the scope
of inspection of ultrasonic tools and provide detection and accurate sizing capabilities
for these small metal loss and corrosion features and are ideally suited for the future
requirements regarding integrity assessment, fitness-for-purpose and corrosion
growth studies.
A large variety of special tool configurations is available, each specifically optimized
to meet the inspection requirements of the pipeline industry.

8 References

[1] Specifications and requirements for intelligent pig inspection of pipelines,

Pipeline Operator Forum, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.,
EPT-OM 1998
[2] Recommended Practice RP-F101, Corroded Pipelines, 1999, DetNorskeVeritas
[3] In-Line Nondestructive Inspection of Pipelines, prepared by NACE International
Task Group 039, NACE International Publication 35100, NACE International,
2001
[4] Pipeline Pigging & Integrity Technology, 3rd edition, Editor John Tiratsoo,
Scientific Surveys and Clarion, 2003
[5] Barbian, A., Beller, M., Hugger A., Jäger, C., Pfanger, A., "Threshold,
Accuracies, and Resolution, Proceedings of the Pipeline Pigging and integrity
Conference 2010, Houston, Clarion, 2010
[6] Pipeline Operator Forum, Specifications and requirements for intelligent pig
inspection
of pipelines, Version 3.2, January 2005
[7] Beller, M., Barbian, A., Uzelac, N., "Combined Quantitative In-Line Inspection of
Pipelines for Metal Loss and Cracks", Proceedings of IPC2006: International
Pipeline Conference September 25-29, 2006, Calgary, Canada, 2006
[8] Vogel, R., Dyck, R., Lalonde, G., Pollard, L., Yates, R., Beller, M., " Combined
Metal Loss And Crack Inspection Of A Gas Pipeline Utilizing Ultrasound
Technology", Proceedings of the Pipeline Pigging and integrity Conference
2007, Houston, Clarion, 2007
[9] Hunsbedt, R., Jung, T., Georgson, M., Tordal, A., Martinsen, K., "Experiences
with ultrasound in wax rich pipelines", Pipeline Pigging Seminar, Pigging
Products & Services Association, Aberdeen, UK, 2010