Mechanical Damage Prevention
An SGA Web Conference Series of 5 Sessions
Session 4 – Monday, March 5, 2007 9:30 AM to 11:30 AM CT
- Prevention & Mitigation Program Development
- Inspecting for MD, tech update
- Audits & Reporting
- Public Education & Awareness (API 1162)
Summary
See summary of this session
Downloads
Slides
- Registrants may download the session slides - grayscale, 2 slides per page PDF handout format (click here)
- Registrants may download the session slides - color, 1 slide per page PDF format (click here).
Recording
Registrants may access/download the session recording (click here).
The Presenters
SGA is proud to have Qishi Chen, Bruce Nestleroth, Garrett Wilkie, Steve Rapp, Bryce Brown, Tom Broughton and Jeff Farrells as presenters for this session and thanks them for their participation -
Qishi Chen
Manager, Onshore. Pipelines & Structures
C-FER Technologies |
Qishi Chen is an engineering manager at C-FER Technologies in Edmonton, Canada. He has expertise in the areas of structure engineering, pipeline engineering and finite element analysis.
His recent work involved projects on compressive strain limits for buried pipelines, local and overall buckling of pipelines, development of pipe-soil interaction models, and application of reliability or risk-based methods to pipeline design and maintenance.
He holds a PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Alberta. |
Bruce Nestleroth, PhD
Senior Research Scientist
Battelle
(invited) |
Bruce Nestleroth is Senior Research Scientist in Battelle's Pipeline Technology Center.
Bruce earned his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering and his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Drexel University in Philadelphia where he studied ultrasonic wave propagation.
He is responsible for the inspection technology development effort at the Pipeline Simulation Facility at Battelle.
For the past 18 years, he has been advancing magnetic flux leakage and other electromagnetic technologies for internal inspection of pipelines, developing and quantifying methods for detecting corrosion, cracking and mechanical damage.
Bruce organizes a workshop on “Pipeline Inspection Using Intelligent Pigs” held twice a year in Columbus, and presents the MFL portion of the workshop. |
Garrett Wilkie
BJ Pipeline Services |
|
Steve Rapp P.E.
Manager, Metallurgical Services
Spectra Energy Transmission |
Steve Rapp is a registered professional engineer in the State of Texas with twenty years of experience in materials design, construction and operation of natural gas pipeline faculties. Steve has fifteen years of service with Spectra Energy and five years as the technical manager for a large diameter pipe manufacturer. Recently, Steve has been responsible for updating and implementing new integrity practices to manage pipeline mechanical damage and stress corrosion cracking.
|
Bryce Brown
Manager of Integrity & Compliance
ROSEN North America |
Bryce is the Manager of Integrity and Compliance for ROSEN North America in Houston, Texas. He has been with the company for 14 years and is responsible for pipeline regulations and integrity as they relate to the company’s pipeline inspection business.
He received a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from Texas A&M University. He is a member of ASME and NACE.
He has held the position of President for both the In-Line Inspection Association (ILIA) and the Pigging Products and Services Association (PPSA). Bryce also represents ROSEN on the PRCI Inspection and Maintenance Technical Planning Committee. He served as the Vice-Chair of the working committee which developed API 1163, “Inline Inspection Systems Qualification Standard”. |
Tom Broughton
Manager, Business Process Solutions
El Paso Pipeline Group
|
|
Jeff Farrells
Public Awareness Program Administrator
El Paso Corporation
|
|
Learning Objectives
After attending this session the participant will -
| Be able to: |
Improve your mechanical damage prevention & mitigation program
Optimize methods for inspecting for mechanical damage.
Improve your audits and public awareness programs. |
| Know: |
What is available for inspecting for mechanical damage.
What others are doing on public awareness and audit.
Discover a new method for improving your prevention & mitigation program. |
Know where to
find out about: |
Public awareness programs and inspecting for mechanical damage . |
Prior Knowlege Recommendations
To get the most from attending this session the participant is recommended to have the following prior knowledge -
SUMMARY OF SESSION 4
The first speaker, Qishi Chen, described work in progress by CFER on fault tree modeling of mechanical damage effectiveness. The purpose is to estimate the effectiveness of damage prevention practices and to incorporate results into risk and reliability analyses. This model can be used to optimize a mechanical damage prevention program, especially if company data is utilized as well as industry data. From industry data, Qishi gave some effectiveness examples:
Soil Cover: 1 meter – 80% probability of exceeding depth of cover
2 meters – 10% “““
3 meters - 5% “““
Patrol Effectiveness: every half day – 10% probability of not detecting excavation
Every day - 30%
Every 10 days - 90%
A listing of effective and practical prevention measures were given.
The next 3 speakers discussed the use of ILI to detect, characterize and measure mechanical damage, i.e. dents with and without gouges, cracks and corrosion:
- Garrett Willke discussed the BJ Services Vectra MFL tool. It has been proven to work on the basis of field experience.
- Bruce Nestleroth of Battelle Columbus described the work he is doing on dual field magnetization to find and measure dents. A tool using this principle is being assembled at this time and field trials may begin this summer.
- Bryce Brown described the Rosen Inspection tool that uses guided angle sensors and eddy current combined to detect pipe geometry changes. Using these probes in conjunction with hi resolution MFL, they are finding < 1% dents that contain metal loss and gouges.
Steve Rapp of Spectra Energy described an inspection & assessment program they performed on ~1,000 miles of pipeline. The 2003 revisions to B31.8 permit a better evaluation of dents. Subpart O of 192 must still be met. A critical step in dent evaluation is getting accurate measurements in the ditch and transferring the data for evaluation purposes. They have developed a dent evaluation flowchart in order to gain consistency in the evaluations. From ~1000 miles of pipeline inspection and ~ 5,000 dent indications found, they had 6 dents that failed the <1.1 RPR criteria, 16 topside dents with metal loss and 70 bottom-side dents with some metal loss. Bottom-side dents with moderate metal loss should be treated as monitored or scheduled dents from a risk management perspective. The excavation, evaluation and repair of bottom-side dents must be done with great care. From a participant question, Spectra reduces operating pressure by 20-40% of SMYS to work on dents.
The next 2 speakers addressed the “soft” issues in mechanical damage, audits, metrics and public communication. It should be noted that these issues have a higher potential visibility to regulators because they are easier to review.
- Tom Broughton filled in for Pat Carey and discussed the El Paso responses to one calls and the automatic auditing features of the software. They received >300,000 one call requests from 37 different centers in ’06. The software does an end of day audit to determine whether each request received was processed. They have developed an in-house Third Party Damage hit or near miss reporting process. The data from this process will be submitted to DIRT.
- Jeff Farrells of El Paso discussed API 1162 Public Communications requirements. He also described collaborative communications work that is being done by PAPA, Pipeline Association for Pipeline Awareness. They have developed and distribute a Pipeline Excavation Guide, this year sending 40,000copies to excavators in a number of states. Further information can be found at www.pipelineawareness.org and www.excavationnguide.com.
