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


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


IP Inspection & Remnant Life Prediction ?

you know you don't knowwhat you know what you know

IP Results (POD) Additional (uncertainty) analyses

The unpredictables !

you know you don't knowwhat you what you don't knowdon't know ' Sword fishes & Elephants'

(1 - POD) Leakage !!

The need of (additional) analyses


Why ?


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


Standardized defect morphology (example DMR IP Technique)

DMR

TEPNL H. van Merriënboer & A. Suurmond

EXP / MIN Seminar – April 2008

6

Circ. Grooving General

MV SD MV SD

5 Length -1,8 4,5 Length -0,6 5,9

Width -5,9 8,5 Width -5,2 11,8

Circ. Slotting Depth 0,3 0,9 Depth 0,7 0,8

MV SD POD 100 POD 100

4 Length -2,3 3,6

Width 5,3 7,4

Depth 2 2,2

W/A POD 100

3

Pitting

MV SD

Length 1,1 5,1

Width 2,8 5,6 Axial Grooving

2 Depth 0,2 0,8 MV SD

POD 100 Length 1,9 4,9

Width 4,8 5,7

Depth 0,6 0,8

POD 100

1

Pinhole (1) Axial Slloting

MV SD MV SD

Length -0,1 5,2 Length 1,5 5,9

Width 3,8 5,2 Width -1 0

Depth 1,2 2,4 Depth 5,2 2,4

POD 91 POD 81

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

L/A


Probabilty of Detection (POD)


POF – probabilistic validation


Defect size correction


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 !!


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


Corrosion growth estimated from largest defect depth


Example Pitting


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


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 !


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 hg

b k

c iweld 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, 5 mm WTL 40 mm L 20 mmW 40 mm W 20 mm

ae g

kb

c hweld n i weld n+1

d

Step 4 Comparison: probabilistic algoritm - Select a probabilty of a 'hit' A mfl n1 ᴖ A ut n2 > 80% g = h i = g c = d k = k a = aidem > 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 = aidem > 99% e = e h = h i = i g = h i ≠ g c ≠ d e ≠ c i ≠ h k = k a = aidem > 50% g = h i = g c = d k = k a = aidem < 50% a = e b = e i = h e = d b = c a = b k ≠ k a ≠ a


More complexities: longitudinal welded versus seamless pipe

Step 5 Know what you know! --> The difference between longitudinal welded and seamless pipe --> Compare apples and banana's ?

ae g

kb

c hweld n i weld n+1

d

Spiral/Longitudinal welded: accuracy MFL versus UT d nominalSD MFL = + 5 - 10% WT WT

SD UT = + 0,5 - 1 mm

ae g Pattern recognision!

---> Use to identify/characterize defectsk

bc h

weld n i weld n+1d

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 piped nominal --> input for Pf calculation !!!!!


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


Long term consequence of IP tool selection.


Estimation ‘risk business loss’ because of IP tool selection


TAP: H.van Merrienboer - February 2015 (rev.0)

Safety - Integrity Risk Evaluation MatrixK 506-08 Failure probability Pipe Lines

P f = 1/Km.year = 10 E-n; En = exponent of 10 Suspected pinhole leakage

Safety EffectCost

Effect

< 10 E-5 ('nev

er hea

rd of it

')

10 E-5

< Pf <

10 E-4

('heard

of

in the in

dustry')

10 E -4

< Pf <

10 E-3

('heard

of

once per

year in

the in

dustry o

r once

at TAQA global'

)

10 E-3

< Pf <

10 E-2

(' has

happen

ed m

ore th

an once

per

year

at TA

QA Global')

> 10 E-2 ('h

as hap

pened

more

than

once per

year a

t TAQA Nethe

rlands')

Mitiga

tion Code

Sligth injury of health 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 E53) 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 E 5 < C < 10 E6

Major impact - Up to 3 fatalities and/or completely disabled and/or

occupational illness10 E6 < C < 10 E7

Massive Impact - More than 3 fatalities > 10 E7

Mitigation measures Mitigation Planning/costCode 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 coupons2 NA NA 2017/200 ke > 100 IP inspection, excl. hydr.test.3 NA > 2016/10000Ke NA > 1000 Replacement pipe section



Busines Loss - Integrity Risk Evaluation MatrixFailure probability Pipe Lines


Business Cost Effect

< 10 E-5 ('nev

er hea

rd of it

')

10 E-5

< Pf <

10 E-4

('heard

of

in the in

dustry')

10 E -4

< Pf <

10 E-3

('heard

of

once per

year in

the in

dustry o

r once

at TAQA global'

)

10 E-3

< Pf <

10 E-2

(' has

happen

ed m

ore th

an once

per

year

at TA

QA Global')

> 10 E-2 ('h

as hap

pened

more

than

once per

year a

t TAQA Nethe

rlands')

Mitiga

tion Code

< 10 E4

10 E4 < C < 10 E53) Section


1,2 ) Situation 2012: Certainty after IP insp & hydr. Test

1,2 3

10 E 5 < C < 10 E6


Corrosion growth effect ? - Section

crossing dune forrest

10 E6 < C < 10 E7

> 10 E7





Environment - Integrity Risk Evaluation MatrixFailure probability Pipe Lines


Environmental Effect

Estimated Cost Effect

< 10 E-5 ('nev

er hea

rd of it

')

10 E-5

< Pf <

10 E-4

('heard

of in th

e industr

y')

10 E -4

< Pf <

10 E-3

('heard

of onc

e per

year

in the i

ndustry

or

once at

TAQA gl

obal')

10 E-3

< Pf <

10 E-2

(' has

happen

ed m

ore th

an once

per

year

at TA

QA Global')

> 10 E-2 ('h

as hap

pened

more

than o

nce per

year

at TAQA

Netherlands')

Mitiga

tion Code

Sligth effect - Contained into premises

< 10 E4

Minor effect - Minor environmental damage, not lasting

10 E4 < C < 10 E53) Section


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 E 5 < C < 10 E6




Major effect - Severe environmental damage that requires extensive measures to restore its natural properties. Oil spill of more than 100 barrels

10 E6 < C < 10 E7

Massive impact - Persistant severe environmental damage - (Permanent) loss of commercial, recreational use or loss of natural recources over a wide area

> 10 E7





Reputation/Legislation - Integrity Risk Evaluation MatrixFailure probabilty Pipe Lines Failure Probability Pipe Lines P f = 1/Km.year = 10 E-n; En = exponent of 10 Suspected pinhole leakage

Reputation/Legislative Effect

Estimated Cost

Effect< 10 E

-5 ('never

heard

of it')

10 E-5

< Pf <

10 E-4

('heard

of in th

e industr

y')

10 E -4

< Pf <

10 E-3

('heard

of onc

e per

year

in the i

ndustry

or

once at

TAQA gl

obal')

10 E-3

< Pf <

10 E-2

(' has

happen

ed m

ore th

an once

per ye

ar at

TAQA Glob

al')

> 10 E-2 ('h

as hap

pened

more

than o

nce per

year

at TAQA

Netherlands')

Mitiga

tion 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 E53) Section


3

Moderate impact - Penalty - Licence to operatie in danger

10 E 5 < C < 10 E6




Major impact - National reputation damage - Local Lost of licence to operate

10 E6 < C < 10 E7

Massive impact - International reputation damage - National long term permit/licence to operate lost

> 10 E7




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 seamlesscorrosion morphology modelling: f(d) = L^xremnant 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


HAK IP pres (2).xlsx

Documents

Transcript of HAK IP pres (2).xlsx