HAK IP pres (2).xlsx

The significance of IP inspection in
a ‘zero-defect’ PIMS
• Significance of the POF specification
• Creation of certainty
• Corrosion growth (assumption)
• Risk assessment and IP inspection
• IP tool selection
Hugo van Merrienboer - TAQA Energy
Netherlands

Remnant life prediction
• Operations window  relevant degradation
mechanism (corrosion, erosion, fatigue,
mechanical damages, etc)
• Degradation features, morphology &
dimensions
• POD of the degradation features by (IP)
inspection
• Accuracy, precision & certainty of sizing
Netherlands

Ingredients of remnant life prediction
• Time depending growth information
• Probabilistic approach including uncertainties
• Informatin of (internal) operations window
• Information of external interferences
• Pipe material mechanical properties
(statistical distributions)
• Effectiveness Cathodic Protection
• Risk evaluation and acceptance method
Netherlands

IP Inspection &
Remnant Life Prediction ?
you know you don't know
what you know what you know
IP Results (POD) Additional (uncertainty) analyses
The unpredictables !
you know you don't know
what you what you don't know
don't know ' Sword fishes & Elephants'
(1 - POD) Leakage !!
The need of (additional) analyses
Netherlands

Why ?
Netherlands

Know what you know & don’t know 
POF specification
• Standardized variation of defect morphology
• POD per defect morphology
• Statistics: Precision and Accuracy
• XL spreadsheet presentation
Netherlands

Standardized defect morphology(example DMR IP Technique)
DMR
TEPNL H. van Merriënboer & A. Suurmond
EXP / MIN Seminar – April 2008
Netherlands

Probabilty of Detection (POD)
Netherlands

POF – probabilistic validation
Netherlands

Defect size correction
Netherlands

Zero Defect Approach – Remnant Life Prediction
• Probabilistic correction of defect dimensions
• Corrosion growth estimation/modelling
• Implementation in pressure failure models
(preferably BS/DNV  Tensile strength)
• Failure modes: PH, Hole and Rupture
• PH leakage is serious failure mode !!
Netherlands

Example – 12”x 11,5 mm pipe line, Pdesign 101 bar, natural gas.
Corrected defect dimensions at 99% confidence
Netherlands

Corrosion growth estimated from largest defect depth
Netherlands

Example Pitting
Netherlands

Know what you know and know what you don’t know!
IP inspection triggers mitigation actions to a remnant life approach
Netherlands

Sequential IP runs, Example MFL
and UT
Know what you don't know!!!!
Comparison of sequential IP runs
IP run n IP technique A (MFL)
pipe nr X pipe nr: Xn1 pipe nr: X n2
Run 1
weld n weld n+1
IP log distance M IP run n
IP run n+1 IP Technique B (UT)
pipe nr X pipe nr: Xn1 pipe nr: X n ????
Run 2
weld n weld n+1
same IP log distance M IP run n+1
Line up !
Netherlands

Sequential MFL and UT, sizing
correction by POF data
Process of comparison of sequential IP runs:
Step 1 Lining up of girth welds & clock position.
Run 1 & 2 pipe nr X pipe nr: Xn1 pipe nr: X n2
a e h
g
b k
c i
weld n weld n+1
d
IP log distance M IP run n
Step 3 Uncertainty correction at sizing 90% certainty --> 2 x SD MFL --> + d 25% WT UT --> + 0, 5mm WT
L 40 mm L 20 mm
W 40 mm W 20 mm
a
e g
k
b
c h
weld n i weld n+1
d
Step 4 Comparison: probabilistic algoritm - Select a probabilty of a 'hit' A mfl n1 ᴖA ut n2 > 80% g = h i = g c = d k = k a = a
idem > 90% g = h i = g c ≠ d k = k a = a
A = 'surface W x L' at maximum dimensions at ' X' confidence level idem > 95% g = h i ≠ g c ≠ d k = k a = a
idem > 99% e = e h = h i = i g = h i ≠ g c ≠ d e ≠ c i ≠ h k = k a = a
idem > 50% g = h i = g c = d k = k a = a
idem < 50% a = e b = e i = h e = d b = c a = b k ≠ k a ≠ a
Netherlands

More complexities: longitudinal
welded versus seamless pipeStep 5 Know what you know!
--> The difference between longitudinal welded and seamless pipe
--> Compare apples and banana's ?
a
e g
k
b
c h
weld n i weld n+1
d
Spiral/Longitudinal welded: accuracy MFL versus UT d nominal
SD MFL = + 5 - 10% WT WT
SD UT = + 0,5 - 1 mm
a
e g Pattern recognision!
---> Use to identify/characterize defects
k
b
c h
weld n i weld n+1
d
Seamless pipe: accuracy MFL versus UT
SD MFL = + 25 - 30% WT Relative
Relative inaccuracy MFL !! (app. 2 - 4 mm).
SD UT = + 0,5-1 mm Absolute
The thinner the pipe the larger the problem!
WT seamless pipe
d nominal --> input for Pf calculation !!!!!
Netherlands

Risk Assessment Subsea Pipe Lines – Production loss at
various LOC morphologies (PH, Hole, Rupture)
Netherlands

Long term consequence of IP tool selection.
Netherlands

Estimation ‘risk business loss’ because of IP tool
selection
Netherlands

TAP: H.van Merrienboer - February 2015 (rev.0)
Safety - Integrity Risk Evaluation Matrix
K 506-08 Failure probability Pipe Lines
P f = 1/Km.year = 10 E-n; En = exponent of 10 Suspected pinhole leakage
Safety Effect
Cost
Effect
<
10
E-5
('neverheard
ofit')
10
E-5
<Pf<
10
E-4
('heard
of
in
the
industry')
10
E-4
<
Pf<
10
E-3
('heard
of
once
peryearin
the
industryoronce
atTAQ
A
global')
10
E-3
<Pf<
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
per
yearatTAQ
A
Global')
>
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
peryearatTAQA
Netherlands')
M
itigation
Code
Sligth injury ofhealth effect -Not
effecting work performance or daily life
activities - no first aid or medical case
<10 E4
Minor injury or health effect -Effecting
work performance -Work under
restrictions -Take up to five days to fully
recover -Effecting daily life activities up
to 5 days -Reversible health effect -
modified duty/restricted work case - LTI
< 5 days
10 E4 <C <10 E5
3) Section
replacement
forrest crossing
1, 2)Situation 2012:
Certainty after IP
insp & hydr. Test
Situation 2015:
Uncertainty
Corrosion growth
effect ? -Section
crossing dune
forrest
1, 2, 3
Moderate impact -Major injury or health
effect - Effecting work performance > 5
days - Effecting daily life activities >5
days - Inreversible health effect
10 E5 < C <10 E6
Major impact - Up to 3 fatalities and/or
completely disabled and/or
occupational illness
10 E6 <C <10 E7
Massive Impact -More than 3 fatalities >10 E7
Mitigation measures Mitigation Planning/cost
Code year/cost year/cost year/cost Cost Magnitude (Kϵ) Description
1 2015/25 Ke >2016/5 Ke 5 Ke/y remnant life > 10 Corr. growth coupons
2 NA NA 2017/200 ke > 100 IP inspection, excl. hydr.test.
3 NA >2016/10000Ke NA > 1000 Replacement pipe section
Netherlands

Busines Loss - Integrity Risk Evaluation Matrix
Failure probability Pipe Lines
Business Cost
Effect
<
10
E-5
('neverheard
ofit')
10
E-5
<Pf<
10
E-4
('heard
of
in
the
industry')
10
E-4
<
Pf<
10
E-3
('heard
of
once
peryearin
the
industryoronce
atTAQ
A
global')
10
E-3
<Pf<
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
per
yearatTAQ
A
Global')>
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
peryearatTAQA
Netherlands')
M
itigation
Code
<10 E4
10 E4 <C <10 E5
3) Section
replacement
forrest crossing
1,2 )Situation 2012:
Certainty after IP
insp & hydr. Test
1,2 3
10 E5 <C <10 E6
Situation 2015:
Uncertainty
Corrosion growth
effect ? - Section
crossing dune forrest
10 E6 <C <10 E7
>10 E7
Netherlands

Environment - Integrity Risk Evaluation Matrix
Failure probability Pipe Lines
Environmen
tal Effect
Estimated
Cost Effect
<
10
E-5
('neverheard
ofit')
10
E-5
<Pf<
10
E-4
('heard
ofin
the
industry')
10
E-4
<
Pf<
10
E-3
('heard
ofonce
peryearin
the
industry
or
once
atTAQ
A
global')
10
E-3
<Pf<
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
per
yearatTAQ
A
Global')
>
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
peryearatTAQA
Netherlands')
M
itigation
Code
Sligth effect - Contained
into premises
<10 E4
Minor effect - Minor
environmental damage, not
lasting
10 E4 <C <10 E5
3) Section
replacement forrest
crossing
1, 2) Situation
2012: Certainty
after IP insp &
hydr. Test
1,2,3
Moderate effect -limited
environmental damage,
that will persist or requires
cleaning up
10 E5 <C <10 E6
Situation 2015:
Uncertainty
Corrosion growth
effect ? -Section
crossing dune
forrest
Major effect - Severe
environmental damage
that requires extensive
measures to restore its
natural properties. Oil spill
ofmore than 100 barrels
10 E6 <C <10 E7
Massive impact -Persistant
severe environmental
damage -(Permanent) loss
ofcommercial, recreational
use or loss of natural
recources over a wide area
>10 E7
Netherlands

Reputation/Legislation - Integrity Risk Evaluation Matrix
Failure probabilty Pipe Lines Failure Probability Pipe Lines
P f = 1/Km.year = 10E-n; En = exponent of 10 Suspected pinhole leakage
Reputation/
Legislative
Effect
Estimated
Cost
Effect
<
10
E-5
('neverheard
ofit')
10
E-5
<Pf<
10
E-4
('heard
ofin
the
industry')
10
E-4
<
Pf<
10
E-3
('heard
ofonce
peryearin
the
industry
or
once
atTAQ
A
global')
10
E-3
<Pf<
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
peryearatTAQA
Global')
>
10
E-2
('hashappened
m
ore
than
once
peryearatTAQA
Netherlands')M
itigation
Code
Slight impact - Remark at
compliance with no legal
effects
<10 E4
1,2 Situation
2012: Certainty
after IP insp &
hydr. Test
1,2
Minor impact - Official
warning
10 E4 <C <10 E5
3) Section
replacement
forrest crossing
3
Moderate impact - Penalty -
Licence to operatie in
danger
10 E5 <C <10 E6
Situation 2015:
Uncertainty
Corrosion growth
effect ? - Section
crossing dune
forrest
Major impact - National
reputation damage - Local
Lost oflicence to operate
10 E6 <C <10 E7
Massive impact -
International reputation
damage - National long
term permit/licence to
operate lost
>10 E7
Netherlands

In summary:
Only probabilistic (risk) analyses migth help.
Most used statistics ('awareness of uncertainties') :
POF: POD, Accuarcy (= Standard Deviation), Precision ( = statistical average)
---> At all defect types: PH, Pitting, Ax Slot, AxG r, Gen, Circ Slot, Ax Slot.
---> At all defects: statistical correction of dimensions at d, L and W.
Additinal Statistical Evaluations:
H0:'depth run 1 = depth run 2'
--> corrosion growth analyses
--> at individual defects and/or at average defect depths
Additional analyses:
longitudinal welded versus seamless
corrosion morphology modelling: f(d) = L^x
remnant life analyses
--> P failure at dimensional corrected defects (PH, Pitting, Gen, etc)
--> P failure at corrosion growth at service years
Consequences of IP tool
--> From Risk Assessment ('Business loss Cost at Remaining Service years')
Make a Business Case of each IP run
--> Presentation IP as mitigation option in Risk Matrix.
---> 'Know what you know' by implementing al the (above) analyse results into your business case!!
The significance of IP inspection
into a ‘zero-defect’ PIMS
Netherlands

HAK IP pres (2).xlsx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à HAK IP pres (2).xlsx

Similaire à HAK IP pres (2).xlsx (20)

HAK IP pres (2).xlsx