IN-LINE INSPECTION PROGRAMS FOR

CORRODED PIPELINES
A. Low1, C. Selman1
1
Wood Group Integrity Management, Perth
SUMMARY: This paper presents an overview of the status in-line inspection technologies that are
currently available in the industry, including the theory behind each inspection technique. It discusses
application of in-line inspection technology for the use of detecting corrosion features. The main focus
of this paper will be to discuss the practical aspects of performing an in-line inspection of a pipeline
including planning, execution, data evaluation and interpretation. The objective of this paper is to
provide the reader with an appreciation of the capabilities and limitations of using in-line inspection
technology to inspect corroded pipelines.

Keywords: Inspection, Corrosion, Integrity, Fitness-for-Purpose, Pipeline.

1. INTRODUCTION
In-line inspection tools are instrumented devices sent down the inside of an operating pipeline system to collect
information about the integrity, physical state, position or conditions in a pipeline using a variety of highly complex
instrumentation and sensors. They are also known as intelligent or smart pigs, which distinguishes these tools from
their less sophisticated counterpart, utility pigs which generally do not have instrumentation, and are used for cleaning,
gauging, dewatering or other pipeline operations or maintenance purposes.
The planning of an in-line inspection campaign is challenging, as
there are many variables to consider. The physical design and
current condition of the pipeline, the physical and chemical
conditions within the pipeline, the objectives of the inspection
program, and the size and type of defects that are required to be
identified define and limit the inspection technology that can be
utilised. This determines the vendors with the required capability
and how the program will be executed.
The execution of an in-line inspection program has many practical
challenges relating to handling, logistics, environmental, available
facilities, inspection procedures and the handling of hazardous
materials. Planning and preparation is critical to avoid the primary
risk of getting a pig stuck.

Figure 1: Example in-line inspection tool

(Source: Public image library of Nord Stream AG)

The final challenge lies in interpretation of in-line inspection data when the final report is received. Engineering
assessment of the reported features is required, so that the impact of any features on the integrity of the pipeline can be
determined.
2. IN-LINE INSPECTION TECHNOLOGIES
There are a number of inspection technologies that are currently available. The different technologies have been developed
to address specific inspection requirements and inspection conditions.
2.1 Geometry (GEO)
Geometry or caliper tools are designed to record the internal radius and cross section profile of a pipeline along its length.
Types of information that may be collected from a geometry tool include pipeline length, diameter, dents, wrinkles, ovality,
location of features (e.g. bends, flanges, welds, tees, wyes), bend radius and angle. The wall thickness can be inferred from
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 1

the internal radius. Caliper pigs work by running a number of fingers along the wall of the pipe, with the radius
calculated from the angle of the finger.
Geometry pigs can also be fitted with a Geographic Information System (GIS) data logger to record exact pipeline route
information. Data loggers to record pressure and temperature along the pipeline are also an option.
Inspection using geometry in-line inspection tools can be performed as a stand-alone operation and is often required to
precede a metal loss inspection to demonstrate that the metal loss tool can readily traverse the line, especially where there
is a lack of detailed design information available on the pipeline. Geometry tools are not as complex, expensive or
challenging to run as a metal loss inspection tool.
2.2 Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL)
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) technology is one of the most
common metal loss inspection technologies used by in-line
inspection tools, particularly in gas systems.
Magnetic modules on the in-line inspection tools generate a
magnetic flux that penetrates the thickness of the pipe wall. Any inhomogeneities in the pipe wall (e.g. internal or external corrosion,
dents, welds or cracks) cause a disruption to the magnetic flux.
Sensors are used to measure the disruption in the flux and the
response pattern. This is then used to characterise, locate and size the
feature that has been detected.
Figure 2: Basis of Magnetic Flux Leakage

MFL tools can operate in both gas and liquid pipelines. A key
advantage of MFL over techniques such as ultrasonic is that it does
not require an acoustic coupling, so is ideal for gas systems.

The ability to achieve a sufficiently powerful magnetic flux in the pipe wall is critical for a successful inspection, and
determines the size of defect that can be detected. For this reason, a number of key variables must be considered when this
technology is being considered. First, the magnet strength required to penetrate the pipe wall is directly related to wall
thickness. The challenge with heavy wall pipe is that strong magnets are required to achieve sufficient flux penetration
however, this increasing magnet strength makes it challenging to launch the tool and keep it moving.
The correct sensors must also be specified. High-resolution inspections should be specified wherever possible. This is
where the tool is fitted with sensors that are able to differentiate whether a detected feature is located on the internal
surface, outer surface or within the pipe wall. The majority of modern MFL tools now provide this inspection resolution as
a standard capability.
2.3 Ultrasonic Tools (UT)
Ultrasonic (UT) inspection is another common in-line inspection technology. It based on the common non-destructive
testing method that has been used for many years on external pipe surfaces.
A UT inspection involves sending a short sound or pulse wave
into a material and measuring the time taken for the pulse to be
reflected back (the pulse-echo). The ultrasound is reflected
from any interface, such as the back wall of the pipe, or any
inhomogeneity within the material, such as a crack. The
features are detected using sensors and sized according to the
amplitude and time taken for the signal to return.
UT inspections require an acoustic coupling medium between
the transducer and the surface of the material being inspected
which generally means this technology can only be used for the
in-line inspection of pipelines that are liquid filled. If UT is
required in a gas system, either the pipeline must be flooded
prior to the inspection, or the pig must be run in a liquid slug
between other pigs. Both are significantly onerous procedures.
Figure 3 Principle of ultrasonic testing
Flooding a gas line requires careful chemical treatment of the flooding liquid, and dewatering (and possibly drying) of the
line post-inspection. Running an inspection tool in a liquid slug requires co-ordination of launching and receiving a series
of pigs, with the liquid slug suspended between them. The liquid slug must be injected and disposed of correctly, and loss
of the liquid slug as the survey is carried out will prevent successful inspection.
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 2

2.4 Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC)

Pulsed eddy current (PEC) is a more recent development for use with in-line inspection tools. Eddy current testing uses
electromagnetic induction to detect flaws in conductive materials.
Alternating current is passed through a primary coil on the
inspection tool to generate a magnetic field within the
adjacent pipe wall. The eddy currents generated are
measured and used to size detected features.
As the strength of eddy currents that are generated
decreases with distance from the electric coil, PEC
technology for in-line inspection is typically only used to
detect and size small features that are located on the pipe
internal wall.

Figure 4 Pulsed eddy current theory

PEC is less suitable if features are located on the external

surface, especially in thick wall pipelines. It is most often
used in conjunction with other technologies such as UT in
a combined tool configuration.

2.5 Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT)

Electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT) technology is a new development for use with in-line inspection tools and is
still undergoing development and process improvements.
An EMAT transducer is made up of a magnet and an electric coil.
Independent magnetic fields are generated by the magnet and
electric coil, when an alternating current is introduced. When this
is placed in close proximity to the test surface, an ultrasonic wave
is generated from the interaction of both magnetic fields. A
conventional UT transducer then detects this wave. This can be
used in the same way as conventional UT pulses to detect wall
thicknesses and flaws.
The benefit of the EMAT transducer is that it does not need to be
in contact with the test surface and does not require an acoustic
coupling. EMAT can therefore be used for in-line inspection of
both liquid and gas filled pipelines.

Figure 4 Principle of EMAT technology

However, the EMAT signal is more complex and generates a weaker signal in comparison to traditional UT probes, so
analysing the signal is more difficult. Current EMATs are also large in size, making them less practical for installation on
in-line inspection tools, though the size and practicality is likely to improve with over time. Once developed and modified
for in-line inspection tools, EMATs could present an attractive alternative to MFL for the inspection of gas pipelines,
particularly those with walls too thick for MFL.
2.6 Acoustic Resonance Technology (ART)
Acoustic resonance technology (ART) is another relatively new development by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [1] for use
with in-line inspection tools. Field trials and continuous development is on going, though initial trials are showing
promising results.
ART works by sending an ultra-broadband pulse acoustic signal
through the test material. As the pulse passes through the material,
a resonance is generated with frequencies that are characteristic of
the material and its thickness. After the transmitter has passed a
given location, a weak narrow-band signal leaks from the material,
which is detected by the trailing receiver. The frequency spectrum,
resonance peaks and their spacing in the narrow band signal are
measured to determine the thickness of the material at that location
[1].

Figure 5 ART technology theory

ART does not require an acoustic coupling or contact with the pipe
and therefore is applicable to inspection of both gas and liquid
filled pipelines.

Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 3

The lower frequencies and longer wave lengths mean that ART is able to achieve a greater depth of penetration compared
to conventional UT signals and inspection of non-ferrous materials is also possible. ART is also more tolerant of deviations
from the inspection angle (i.e. is better on rough surfaces) than traditional UT. At the present time, there is only one largediameter tool available but there are plans to develop additional tools to address different pipe sizes and commercialise this
technology in the near future.
2.7 Combined Technologies
Combined technologies are often specified and utilised during in-line inspection programs. This is where more than one
technology is utilised on a single inspection vehicle. This is commonly used to improve the quantity and quality of data
that is collected. The data that is returned to the NDT transducers are typically in a form of a signal, which still needs to be
processed and interpreted. Having more or different signal types can assist with processing, as more detailed information is
available.
3. METHOD OF PROPULSION
3.1 Free-Swimming
The most common propulsion method for in-line inspection is to use free-swimming inspection tools. These are tools that
propelled through the pipeline using flow in the pipeline. Normal production flow is used in the majority of cases, but
where this is not practical or does not provide favourable flow conditions, a suitable non-process fluid such as nitrogen, air,
potable water or treated seawater can be used.
Free swimming tools can be used when there are launching and receiving facilities, adequate propulsion medium, as well
as the required differential pressure to propel the tool. Most of these tools are uni-directional however; a number of bidirectional tools are available.
All inspection tools have limits of velocity (typically 1-5m/s) outwith, which the probability of detection of defects and
also the accuracy of location and size data is adversely affected, due to limitations on sensor and data recorder technology.
Acceptable operating speeds vary with the inspection tool and vendor. Where practical, the appropriate velocity is achieved
by adjusting the flowrate to give an acceptable tool velocity, but where this is impractical (e.g. in pipelines with high
minimum flowrates), tools are available with active bypass technology for speed control process fluids are allowed past
the tool to lower the tool velocity at a given flowrate. Velocity excursions are common in risers, or scarp crossings, and
where slugging behaviour is observed. Managing velocity is a critical factor in successful inspections.
3.2 Tethered Tools
Tethered tools are those that are tethered to a winch for deployment or retrieval. In vertical systems such as risers, the
winch is used to lower the tool into the line at a controlled rate. Tethered tools can also be pushed down the line with
process or service fluids. Once inspection is complete, or the tool has reached the limit of the tether length, the winch
system is used to recover the tool. The tether can also function as an umbilical, so that only the primary sensors need to be
located on the tool itself; recording and analysis equipment can remain outside the pipeline, reducing the size and
complexity of the tool.
Tethered tools are useful in situations where there is only a single-point topsides access to the pipeline (for example on
tanker loading lines or subsea tie-backs). There are obviously limitations on the length able to be surveyed based on winch
capacity and tethered tools require additional safety considerations due to the requirement to maintain access to the
pipeline during inspection works, though gland arrangements for the tether can allow tethered inspection of pressurised or
hazardous lines.
3.3 Crawlers and Tractors
Crawlers and tractors are in-line inspection tools that have the ability to fully self-propel either in one or both directions.
Some crawlers are fully self-contained, whereas others are tethered. Self contained crawlers and tractors do not require the
system to be open to the environment, however controlling the speed and position in vertical or steeply inclined lines can
be difficult. Tethers allow more reliable recovery via a winch, but the drag of the tether limits the range of the survey. Like
gravity or flow propelled tethered tools, many crawlers are sensor packages only, transmitting data back to storage and
analysis facilities outside the pipeline. They are often fitted with lights and remote controlled high definition cameras to
permit live visual inspection of the line. All crawlers have relatively short ranges; long pipelines cannot be inspected due to
limits in battery technology.

Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 4

4. IN-LINE INSPECTION TOOL CONFIGURATION

In-line inspection tools comprise of a number of modules joined by articulated couplings. The configuration of each
module varies with each vendor and depends on the inspection technology of the tool, and the objective of the inspection
program. Typical modules are described in Table 1.
Table 1. Typical Components of an In-Line Inspection Tool
Component

Function

Drive Unit

In a free-swimming tool or flow driven tethered tool, the drive unit is a set of drive cups, which
provide the seal against the pipe wall against which differential pressure and propulsion is achieved.
Crawler tools have one or more mechanical drive units, with caterpillar tracks, wheels or other
propulsion system.

Sensor Unit(s)

Holds the sensors used to perform the inspection. Combined inspection technique tools may have a
single unit with multiple sensor types, or there may be a separate unit for each sensor type.

Magnets

Generates the magnetic flux (MFL tools only).

Battery Unit(s)

Provides electrical power for the in-line inspection.

Data Recorder

Records and stores the signals from the sensor unit and odometer.

Odometer

Provides a measure of the log distance during an in-line inspection run.

The various components are modules typically mounted in a train, connected by an articulated joint system. The joints and
the length of the units limit the bending radius of the tool, so pipeline features such as bends, tees, wyes and valves can be
obstacles to a survey. For existing pipelines, this means that the design of the proposed tool train must be carefully
matched to the features and restrictions of the pipeline to be inspected. For a new design pipeline, it is necessary to identify
the generic limitations of tools appropriate to the pipeline, and design the pipeline accordingly.
The length of an in-line inspection tool generally increases as the pipe internal diameter decreases, and also increases with
the intended length of the survey (to accommodate the extra battery, sensors and storage capacity). If in-line inspection is
anticipated during the service life of a pipeline, the appropriate inspection technology must be identified at the design
stage, so that pipe bends and pig traps can be correctly sized. This means that identifying the likely inspection tool is a
critical design decision. For existing pipelines, the existing pig traps must be matched to the proposed tool; if the existing
traps are inadequately sized, new traps may need to be constructed, which can add to the lead time and cost of a survey.
Space limitations in the pig trap location may also affect the available size of the trap, and so limit the tool selection.
5. INSPECTION OF CORROSION FEATURES
5.1 Pipeline Operators Forum (POF)
As in-line inspection technology developed, a group of operators formed the Pipeline Operators Forum (POF) to develop
a specification for in-line inspections [2], which is commonly referred to as the POF specification. The objective of the
forum was to ensure consistency on in-line inspection terminology, feature detection and reporting standards across the
industry. More recent POF publications include guidance documents to achieve successful in-line inspections [3] and on
field verification procedures for in-line inspection [4].
5.2 Feature Detection
The in-line inspection technology that will be used will depend primarily on the corrosion features to be measured. In the
majority of cases, inspections are performed to quantify metal loss features such as corrosion. Inspections can also be
performed to detect the presence of axial or longitudinal cracks, dents, wrinkles, weld anomalies, buckles, coating
disbondment and leaks.
Metal loss anomalies are classified by the POF in accordance with its geometry. Figure 6 shows the graphical presentation
of the standard POF anomaly classifications based upon the relative length (L) and width (W) divided by the geometrical
parameter A. For pipes with wall thickness (t) less than 10mm, then A = 10mm. For pipes with wall thickness (t) equal to
or greater than 10mm, then A = t.
A key variable that must be understood with reference to feature detection is the probability of detection (POD). The POD
refers to the likelihood that a feature present in the pipe wall will be detected. The POD largely depends on sensor
technology, construction of the in-line inspection tool and inspection run conditions (such as velocity).
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 5

The POD can decrease in the heat affected zone (HAZ) and weld metal
areas. This occurs in particular when MFL technology is used where the
internal weld bead lifts the magnet and sensor from the pipe wall, disrupting
the magnetic field. The POD can also decrease around pipeline features
such as bends, tees, wyes and valves for the same reason.
As the objective of any in-line inspection is to detect and size features,
understanding the key variables that can affect the POD and inspection
accuracy is critical (see Section 6).

Figure 6 Feature Classification

(Source: Reference 2)

5.3 Feature Reporting

The majority of inspection techniques have two thresholds. The first is the
detection threshold, which represents the limits for the tool to detect and
size a feature. MFL and similar tools have a detection threshold determined
by the thickness of the pipe wall; advanced MFL tools have a detection
threshold of 5% of the pipe wall thickness, however typical tools are around
10% of the pipe wall thickness.

UT and similar tools have a more absolute size threshold, of the order of 0.1-0.5mm. The second is the feature-reporting
threshold, which represents the smallest feature that will individually be reported in the final inspection report.
The majority of inspection techniques have two thresholds. The first is the detection threshold, which represents the limits
for the tool to detect and size a feature. MFL and similar tools have a detection threshold determined by the thickness of
the pipe wall; advanced MFL tools have a detection threshold of 5% of the pipe wall thickness, however typical tools are
around 10% of the pipe wall thickness. UT and similar tools have a more absolute size threshold, of the order of 0.10.5mm. The second is the feature-reporting threshold, which represents the smallest feature that will individually be
reported in the final inspection report.
The reporting threshold can be the detection
threshold however, is typically set at much higher
limits, often determined by pipeline operator based
on the defect tolerance of the pipeline.
Figure 7 illustrates a typical signal that is recorded
by a MFL inspection tool. This signal is then
processed by specialist data processors, who
translate these signals into reported features. Signal
processing is very complex and time consuming. A
lower reporting threshold means more processing
time, as the small features are harder to size due to
noise interference.

Figure 7 Typical MFL Signal Report

6. KEY INSPECTION VARIABLES

When planning an in-line inspection program, a number of key variables must be taken into consideration. These variables
influence the ability to perform an in-line inspection, to execute a successful inspection run, and to generate high quality
inspection data, in terms of high POD and sizing accuracy.
6.1 Content
Pipeline content (phase, and composition) during the inspection run is a key variable that determines which in-line
inspection technology can be used. This should be the primary consideration when planning an inspection program.
Liquid pipelines can be inspected by all the available technologies, so the key considerations for selection of tools for
liquid lines are typically in relation to acceptable pressure, temperature and flow rates. Gas pipelines can limit the use of
UT based tools as described in Section 2.3, as well as being limited by the physical conditions.
Vendors also need to be advised of content in terms of presence of highly corrosive products (e.g. H2S or CO2), sand,
debris, wax, mercury and any other elements that may affect performance of their inspection tool.

Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 6

6.2 Pressure and Temperature

Pipeline pressure may need to be reduced during the inspection run to protect the tool. A pressure limitation is dependent
on the physical build of the tool and therefore varies with each vendor. Planning has to consider the effect of content and
pressure on the flow rate during the inspection (see Section 6.3).
The maximum operating temperature for most in-line inspection tools is around 65C. The majority of tools can tolerate
temperatures up to 80C for short periods, but bespoke inspection tools are required for sustained higher temperatures.
6.3 Flow Rates
All inspection tools have an optimum operating velocity range
as described in Section 3.1. The tool velocity is mostly
determined by the flow rate during the inspection run which
can usually be adjusted by choking the production flow.
Flow rate variations and speed excursions can also occur due to
slug flow, bends, features, and inclines and changes in the line
diameter or internal surface condition. Some vendors have
designed tools with active bypass function so that the tool can
maintain its own speed during the inspection.

Figure 8 Example velocity profile with excursion

The selection of the in-line inspection tool therefore must

include consideration for the limits of velocity of the tool
compared with the flowrates expected during the inspection
run, and whether active bypassing is required.

6.4 Physical Properties of the Pipeline

Physical properties of the pipeline that need to be considered include its length, wall thickness, minimum bend radius,
diameter changes, and the presence of other appurtenances such as wyes and tees.
Length is important as it dictates power requirements for the in-line inspection tool, and may require special material
considerations. Wear of the driving and sealing cups is also a key consideration for long pipelines, as a loss in the sealing
capacity could result in the pig losing drive and becoming stuck. Another common problem is wear to sensors as they drag
along the pipe wall, resulting in loss of data. With improvements in sensor, battery and drive cup material technology,
inspection of long pipelines is becoming less of a challenge. Pipelines >1000km in length have been successfully inspected
in a single run.
Wall thickness is also a critical consideration. Each inspection tool and technology has limits on the wall thickness that it
can inspect (see Sections 2.2 to 2.6). Higher pressure pipelines being installed with ever thicker walls pose a severe
challenge to in-line inspection, as the threshold of detectability for thick walls approaches the defect tolerances of the lines,
reducing the predictive value of inspections. Feature detection and reporting thresholds for an inspection tool are usually
quoted in relation to the pipe wall thickness and must be checked against the defect tolerance of the pipeline to ensure that
the tool is sufficiently sensitive to obtain useful predictive data.
The tightest bend radius in a system can determine whether a given tool can traverse the pipeline. Historically, the limits
for intelligent pigging were 5D bends, but many modern tools are able to traverse 3D bends as a standard, and some have
capability to navigate tighter bends down to 1.5D radius. The distance between bends can also restrict the passage of tools
and the inspection vendor will typically request piping isometrics to confirm this.
Pipelines with internal diameter changes are becoming more common, particular, in subsea developments and long lines. If
using a free-swimming tool, bespoke multi-diameter solutions are available using flexible driving cups that are able to
expand and contract with diameter changes. This does affect the passage of the tool and there are practical limits to the
diameter differentials that can be accommodated. Currently this is a maximum of 4 to 6 change in diameter.
Appurtenances present along the pipeline must also be taken into consideration. Tees and wyes in particular, can result in a
stuck pig scenario if they have not been designed to accommodate pigging activities. Valves within the system can also
present a threat if not fully open, as a tool can get stuck.
6.5 Pigging Facilities
Physical considerations shall include available pigging facilities and physical properties of the pipeline. Facilities that are
required include pig launchers and receivers that have been designed for intelligent pigging, the ability to gain access to the
pipeline, sufficient space around the access point for launching and receiving activities; as well as facilities to handle debris
and hydrocarbons from pigging operations.
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 7

Pig launchers and receivers are a proprietary design that is dependent on the requirements for pigging activities during the
installation, pre-commissioning, commissioning and operations phases of a pipeline. Some are designed as permanent
installation and others are temporary, stored in a warehouse and installed only when pigging activity is required.
These items are classed as pressure vessels, as full pressure is contained within launchers and receivers during launching
and receiving activities. The design of the closure mechanism therefore is critical, as well as the ability to bleed down
pressure, and handle any debris and hydrocarbons that may be pushed into the vessel during pigging operations.
In-line inspection tools can be long and heavy, so design of launching and receiving facilities needs to consider space and
handling requirements during launching and receiving activities.
As pig traps are only periodically used, it is also critical that the trap is thoroughly inspected, with emphasis on the sealing
surfaces and door hinges and quick closure devices, before being used.
7. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
An in-line inspection program is usually triggered by the inspection plan for the pipeline, by corrosion monitoring data
(e.g. probes, sampling, etc.) that indicates active corrosion in the pipeline or other associated event that have caused
concern about the integrity of the wall (e.g. excessive exposure to untreated seawater during installation). This section
details the practical aspects of planning and executing and in-line inspection program.
7.1 Planning the Inspection
The first decision to make is which technology to use. This is determined by the type and size of corrosion features that are
expected for the pipeline, as well as the product in the pipe (i.e. gas, wet gas, liquid) and physical conditions.
The next step is to do a general assessment of whether the pipeline can be pigged. This involves reviewing the design of
the pipeline, including major components to determine for example, whether there are adequate launching and receiving
facilities, the condition of the valves, the product flow rate, pressure, temperature, and so forth. The selection between a
free-swimming, tethered or crawler tool will be driven by the pipeline configuration; lines with free traversal and pig taps
on each end favour free swimming. Short, obstructed or dead end pipelines will favour tethered or crawler tools.
At this stage, selecting and engaging an in-line inspection vendor is beneficial. The vendor may be determined by the tool
requirements, if only one can supply the correct service. Otherwise, the Pigging Products and Services Association (PPSA)
[5] maintain a global directory of vendors that provide pigging services. There is an on-line guide to vendors that specialise
in providing in-line inspection services, categorised by the type of features to be inspected.
Once engaged, a good in-line inspection vendor will firstly request the operator to complete a Pipeline Questionnaire. This
document is used to gather information on the pipeline that will be relevant to designing an in-line inspection program and
select or build a tool that is optimal for the inspection program. An example questionnaire is available from the Pipeline
Operators Forum [3]. This information gathering step is highly critical to the success of the program. As discussed earlier,
the more information that is available on the pipeline; the less risky the in-line inspection program. In-line inspection is a
hazardous operation and lack of planning or knowledge can lead to damage to the asset, a loss of production and/or loss of
the in-line inspection tool.
During the planning process, API 1163 [6] can be used as a guideline. This document covers the use of in-line inspection
systems for onshore and offshore gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. It includes tethered or free swimming systems for
detecting metal loss, cracks, mechanical damage, pipeline geometrics, and pipeline location or mapping. This document is
an umbrella document that provides performance-based requirements for in-line inspection systems, including procedures,
personnel, equipment, and associated software.
Once the appropriate studies have been performed, the inspection vendor will provide a proposal based on the inspection
specification that is required. If a bespoke build is required, the lead time for an inspection tool can be significant.
Inspection plans and procedures will need to be developed with the on-site operations team, and these are best developed
in close cooperation with the inspection vendor.
7.2 Risks of Stuck Pig
One of the biggest risks in relation to performing an in-line inspection program is getting a pig stuck in the pipeline during
the inspection program. The consequences include deferred production for the operator, and potential loss of a high-value
inspection tool for the vendor. A number of practical measures can be taken to mitigate this risk.
The main prevention is to collect as much information as possible, on the construction and condition of the pipeline so that
the tool itself, and the procedures for the survey minimise the risk of sticking. Cleaning of the pipeline may be required
prior to an in-line inspection run to remove solids which may build up in front of the pig and prevent progress, and a
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 8

gauging or caliper pig run may be required to prove the internal diameter of the line is sufficient to pass the tool. The
vendor will advise on any additional inspection or preparation requirements during the planning phase.
The second prevention is controlling the flow and speed of the pig to ensure that it progresses smoothly, and does not come
to a stop; as it is much more difficult to start a pig moving than keep it to moving.
Monitoring the position of the pig is important to detect whether or where a pig has become
stuck. Pig signallers can be mounted on pig launchers and receivers to indicate when the tool
has left the launcher, and has arrived at the receiver. Some pipelines are specified with
acoustic pig detectors, usually on manifolds or mid line tees, which detects the sound as a pig
passing and checks that a pig passed that location.
Pipeline markers can also be used. These markers are mounted at known distances along the
pipeline and the in-line inspection tool can be programmed to send a signal as it passes each
marker. The distance between markers is agreed during the planning phase. Markers add to
the cost and duration of the inspection program as they need to be positioned, monitored and
subsequently removed. The use of subsea pipeline markers mean that a support vessel and
remotely operated vehicle (ROV) is required during in-line inspection runs.

Figure 9 Pig signalling

device (mounted)

Pig tracking devices are often specified on the tool itself so that the location
and progress of the inspection tool can be monitored during the inspection run.
A number of devices are readily available and are based on acoustic methods
(pingers) or radioactive isotopes (tracers). If the pig becomes stuck, its
location can be determined using these indicators.
In the event that a pig does become stuck, the first action is to locate the its
position in the pipeline. In most cases, the tool can usually be un-stuck by
increasing the differential pressure across the tool or by rocking the pig by
decreasing the pressure in the pipeline to allow the pig to relax, then increasing
the pressure again.
Figure 10 Remote pig tracking system
(Source: Tracerco Diagnostics)

If the above procedures fail, more drastic intervention maybe required and in a
worst-case scenario, the tool will need to be cut out of the pipeline.

7.3 Preparing the Pipeline for Inspection

In order to minimise the risk of getting an in-line inspection tool stuck in the pipeline, the pipeline owner is usually
required to execute a series of cleaning and gauging runs to prepare the pipeline.
The design of a cleaning pig will largely depend on what debris is expected in a pipeline (e.g. if there is sand, wax, etc.).
Where severe build-up of solids is suspected, multiple cleaning pig runs may be required, using increasingly aggressive
pigs will be required with the first few pigs specified to be tolerant of solids so that they do not get stuck. Where sufficient
cleaning cannot be achieved, specific fluidisation tools can be used. These are a variant of the active bypass tools, but
instead of speed control, the bypass is used to sweep and fluidise solids in front of the tool, to prevent them building into a
solid dune which can stop the pig.
Gauge pigs are used to confirm clear passage of the pig through the pipeline. Utility pigs are fitted with an aluminium disc,
usually at 95% of the internal diameter of the pipe wall however, this may vary depending on the requirement of the in-line
inspection tool. This gauge plate must be relatively undamaged upon receipt to confirm that the in-line inspection tool can
be run in the pipeline.
Depending on the in-line inspection vendor, known history of the pipeline and level of perceived risk, it is possible that the
in-line inspection vendor may request to be on-site during these preparation runs; so that they can verify the outcomes of
the cleaning and gauging runs. Cleaning and gauging runs should be executed immediately before the in-line inspection
run and a full record (e.g. run conditions, run times, wear of the pig, debris in the receiver, etc.) should be maintained.
7.4 Performing the In-Line Inspection
Once planning and preparation work is completed, performing the in-line inspection itself should be relatively straightforward. As per any work performed on site, a job hazard analysis is required on the procedure as well as a pre-start
meeting. There are a number of additional considerations for performing an in-line inspection program.
The first is to consider how the in-line inspection tool will be transported and handled into the launcher. In-line inspection
tools can be several metres in length, and weigh several tonnes. MFL tools also have large magnet units. Retrieving the
tool from the receiver has the same requirements plus handling and disposal of process fluids and debris, some of which
may be hazardous or flammable.
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 9

Project planning should consider the time taken to for launching, running and receiving the tool. Some in-line inspection
tools can be fitted with pressure-activated power units, which allow the tool to remain in a suspended condition in the
launcher, until such time that it is convenient to launch the tool. When the launcher is pressurised to launch, the tool
powers itself up. Without one of these, the battery life of the tool must take into account the preparation time between
being loaded into the launcher, and actually launching.
If the pipeline has not been subjected to a rigorous cleaning program, it is possible that debris handling will need to be
considered. The tool itself will be covered in hydrocarbons on receipt, so a procedure to transport and clean the tool to
acceptable environmental standards is required.
Once the tool is retrieved and cleaned, the inspectors require a clean workspace (e.g. a dedicated area in a workshop)
where data download will occur. This initial download of data is purely to verify if inspection has recorded the minimum
required volume of data. Whether the inspection has been successful can usually be confirmed within a day. If there has
been insufficient data collected, multiple runs maybe required and this should always be included in the plans as a
contingency.
On completion and demobilisation of the in-line inspection tool, most vendors deliver the final report within 1 to 2 months,
depending on the level of complexity that is required for data processing.
7.5 Verification Activities
Verification is an additional step that should be performed, if this is within practical limits of time and budget. The
objective of verification is to confirm the detection threshold and accuracy of in-line inspection tool. The sizing accuracy
of an in-line inspection tool can vary significantly and often, features can either be undersized or oversized. As engineering
assessments will be based on the sized features, verification improves confidence levels in the assessment.
The vendor, prior to the in-line inspection, performs calibration of the tool by running it through a test pipe that contains
machined sample defects. Verification however, is and additional step to be performed by the operator to compare the inline inspection results with known accessible features on the inspected pipeline.
On onshore pipelines, verification is performed by accessing the location of selected or critical features from the pig record
and using conventional external non-destructive testing (NDT) methods to verify the location size and geometry of the
reported feature. Verification should be performed on a sufficient number of features, to increase confidence levels in the
pig results. Verification is less practical for subsea pipelines, but accessible features (e.g. on the riser or where the pipeline
comes onshore) can be used. Severe defects on subsea pipelines can be verified by external inspection, for example by
ROV deployed UT, or subsea radiography to confirm the defect before expensive remedial action is taken.
8. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF FEATURES
8.1 General
The in-line inspection report provided by the vendor should summarise all aspects of the inspection campaign, including
pre-inspection runs, tool specification, how the tool performed, inspection conditions and so forth. The main component of
the report will be the pipe tally or list of features that have been detected. The POF Standard [2] provides a guide for
feature reporting, which is used by the majority of in-line inspection vendors.
8.2 Assessment Codes
The next step required will be to perform an engineering assessment of the reported features. There are a number of fitness
for service assessment codes that are available, depending on the defect assessment that is required, the regulatory
requirements of the pipeline, and the original pipeline design code. For subsea pipelines, DNV RP F101 [7], ASME B31G
[8] and the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) [9] are used for assessment of metal loss features. Onshore
pipelines can use ASME B31G [8], the PDAM [9] and API 579 [10]. In the majority of cases, ASME B31G [8] is used.
Dents, cracks and gouges can be addressed by API 579 [10] or through engineering criticality assessment (ECA) with
guidance from BS7910 [11].
8.3 Assessment of Metal Loss Features
The most common assessment performed is on metal loss features, to determine pressure retaining capability and corrosion
rates in the pipeline. The objective is to predict remaining life and plan intervention work, as it is required, to maintain the
required integrity for the pipeline.
As metal loss occurs, the pressure retaining capability of the pipeline decreases. The engineering assessment involves
determining the safe working pressure of the pipeline, given the presence of the individual and clustered features.
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 10

The rate of corrosion since the last inspection can be determined

by extrapolation between surveys, and applied to the features to
predict the time until the feature will grow to become
unacceptable. If a previous inspection has not been performed, the
corrosion rate can be averaged from the time that the pipeline was
commissioned, though this is an extremely rough estimate and a
large factor of uncertainty should be applied. Corrosion modelling
techniques, or corrosion monitoring data from the line can also be
used to predict anomaly growth.
This corrosion growth modelling is used to predict when the
feature (or cluster of features) is likely to lose its pressure retaining
capability and therefore, when remediation may be required. This
information can also be used to schedule the next inspection using
Risk Based Inspection techniques.
Figure 14 Example Defect Assessment Curve
Other inspection, maintenance or monitoring data should be considered in the assessment process; especially if a specific
event may have triggered an excessive corrosion rate. If a feature (or cluster of features) fails the assessment (i.e. the safe
working pressure is less than the maximum allowable operating pressure), the mitigation options include de-rating the
pipeline (i.e. lower the maximum allowable operating pressure), or repair of the defect.
Engineering assessment is performed based on the length, width and depth of the features. As discussed throughout this
paper, a significant number of variables could affect the sizing accuracy of the features. Confidence on feature size and
location can be improved through verification activities, but any assessment of a features fitness for purpose must include
adequate consideration of the accuracy of the source tool.
9. CURRENT TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS
9.1 General
In-line inspections are the main basis of the integrity management programme for most oil and gas pipelines, as inspections
provide the most complete data set on pipeline wall thickness. Some pipeline licenses require design for in-line inspections
and the regulator may require scheduled inspections. As with any technology, continuous improvements and developments
are on going to address more challenging pipelines, achieve better feature detection; provide more robust or mobile
inspection tools. The in-line inspection industry is a dynamic, with a high rate of new technology development. Some of
the current limitations are discussed below; however it is likely that these will be reduce or be overcome in the near future.
9.2 Heavy Wall Thickness
Each technology has limitations on the wall thickness that can be inspected with regards to the defects that can be detected
or sized. This mostly relates to inspection techniques such as MFL and PEC due to the proximity limitations in the
generation of the magnetic flux or eddy current within the adjacent pipe wall. The boundaries of what is considered heavy
wall however, continues to increase with the emergence of new technologies driven by the requirement to inspect heavy
wall pipe for deepwater pipelines. The thicknesses that can be practically inspected are expected to keep rising.
9.3 Pressure and Temperature
Every inspection tool has limits on its operating pressure and temperature, dictated by the tolerance of the electronic
components in the tool, and the ability of seals to exclude the process fluids. With increasing numbers of high pressure and
high temperature pipelines in the world, it is likely that as with heavy wall, the tools will continue to evolve to cope with
ever-higher pressures and temperatures.
9.4 Corrosion Resistant Alloy
Pipeline designs using carbon steel internally clad or lined with corrosion resistant alloys are becoming increasingly
prevalent. The most common cladding or lining materials are AISI 316L and Alloy 625. The lining is specified to protect
the carbon steel from highly corrosive environments in the pipe. The CRA however, is still susceptible to pitting corrosion
under some conditions, and breaches of the lining may occur. This is giving rise to the requirement to inspect the CRA
layer for evidence of pitting; or to inspect behind the CRA layer for evidence of corrosion of the substrate carbon steel. At
the present time, no in-line inspection tools have been qualified for inspecting CRA cladding or linings, but development is
underway to fill this expected need, and new technologies are expected in the near future.
Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 11

10. CONCLUSIONS
When specified and executed correctly, an in-line inspection of a pipeline is currently the most comprehensive inspection
method to detect and size corrosion in pipelines. In-line inspections are complex programs to execute as there are many
variables to be taken into consideration. A successful program will return invaluable data on the condition of the pipeline
that cannot be replicated by any other inspection technology that is currently available in the industry.
In-line inspection programs are a hazardous operation with many operational risks. The health, safety and environmental
risks must be considered at every step of the inspection program; and all efforts must be taken to mitigate the risk of having
a pig stuck in the pipeline.
The final step in any program is not the delivery of the report, but the engineering assessment of reported features. This is
to determine whether metal loss features in the pipeline will affect its integrity, at the present time or in the future. Being
able to predict potential failure is a positive and proactive integrity management approach.
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge Chris Saunders (Engineering Manager) and Enda OSullivan (Asia-Pacific Manager) for their
continuous support to ensure technical knowledge is shared within the industry, for the benefit of all.
12. REFERENCES
1.

Norli Petter, Haland Erling, Olsen Age A.F. and Waag, Grunde (2011) Using half-wave resonances to measuring
thickness and lack of mechanical contact in lined pipes (In) Proceedings of the 24th International Congress on
Condition Monitoring and Diagnostics Engineering Management, 30 May 01 June 2011, Stavanger, Norway.

2.

Pipeline Operators Forum (2009) Specifications and requirements for intelligent pig inspection of pipelines.

3.

Pipeline Operators Forum (2012) Guidance document to achieve in-line inspection first run success.

4.

Pipeline Operators Forum (2012) Guidance on field verification procedures for in-line inspection.

5.

Pigging Products & Services Association, http://www.ppsa-online.com/

6.

API 1163 (2005) In-line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard.

7.

DNV RP F101 (2010) Recommended Practice for Corroded Pipelines.

8.

ASME B31G (2012) Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines.

9.

Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) Joint Industry Project.

10. API 579 (2000) Recommended Practice for Fitness for Service.
11. BS7910 (2005) Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures.
13. AUTHOR DETAILS
Allison Low is Pipeline Integrity Team Leader at Wood Group Integrity Management, a position
she has held since 2009. She and her team focus on the planning and execution of pipeline
integrity management plans, IMMR programs, fitness for service assessments and failure
assessments for operators within the APAC region. She also supports a number of pipeline
integrity technology initiatives.

Chris Selman is a Principal Materials and Corrosion Engineer at Wood Group Integrity
Management, a position he has held since 2006. He consults on all the major North West Shelf
developments with regards to materials selection, corrosion assessments and the development of
corrosion management plans. He specialises in corrosion modelling and monitoring techniques.

Corrosion & Prevention 2013 Paper 100 - Page 12