GTI/AGA ECDA Project - Protocol /Implementation Plan Development

D. A. Ersoy, Manager, Materials Testing and Analysis - Gas Technology Institute

K. G. Leewis, Principal, Integrity Management - Gas Technology Institute
Abstract
Along with thirty local distribution companies,
GTI and AGA are developing a detailed
External
Corrosion
Direct
Assessment
implementation protocol.
This protocol
quantitatively defines the procedures, criteria,
and methods to carry out a direct assessment in
conjunction with the ASME B31.8S and NACE
RP0502 standards. The protocol is being used
to conduct fifteen assessments under a wide
variety of pipeline and environmental conditions
throughout the country. The specific assessment
criteria and the reasoning behind them are
discussed below for the first two steps of direct
assessment - Pre-Assessment and Indirect
Inspections.

Assessment. The research program includes a

task to perform fifteen direct assessments (each
on a different companies pipeline segment). It
was determined that the detailed protocol was
needed to ensure consistency between these
assessments. This would allow the data and
conclusions to be pooled together to improve the
implementation
procedure
and
provide
quantitative data on the performance of different
tools used under different environmental and
pipeline conditions.
This paper will discuss
several key procedures and criteria that were
drafted during the development of the ECDA
protocol. Only the first two (of four) steps of
ECDA:
Pre-Assessment and Indirect
Inspections will be discussed below.
ECDA Pre-Assessment Step

Introduction
The Gas Technology Institute (GTI) and the
American Gas Association (AGA) have
developed a collaborative research program to
help Local Distribution Companies who operate
high-pressure natural gas transmission lines
understand the methods and procedures to
perform integrity assessments and meet
government-imposed regulations. This program
includes the development of a standard External
Corrosion
Direct
Assessment
(ECDA)
inspection protocol that assists companies in the
implementation
of
NACE
Standard
Recommended Practice - RP 0502-2002,
"Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment
Methodology". This operational protocol is
really a direct assessment implementation plan.
Such a plan is part of the requirement of the
Office of Pipeline Safety's (OPS) Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled,
"Pipeline Integrity Management in High
Consequence
Areas
(Gas
Transmission
Pipeline)".
The NACE ECDA RP directs users to develop
procedures, methods, criteria, etc. to carry out
many of the action items required for Direct

The objective of the Pre-Assessment step of

the protocol/standard is to determine three
things:

Can External Corrosion Direct Assessment

(ECDA) be used to determine the
performance of the coating and cathodic
protection system and judge the integrity of
the pipe segment(s) relative to external
corrosion.

What two complementary inspection tools

can be used to apply ECDA along the
pipeline segment.

What are the start and finish locations of the

inspection regions inside these pipeline
segments.

Pre-assessment of a pipeline segment is critical

and is used throughout the entire ECDA process.
An incomplete or cursory attempt at Preassessment will negatively affect the accuracy of
the External Corrosion Direct Assessment.
This step is not straight forward due to several
factors: surveying techniques for various data

sets are usually different, quality terms are

frequently missing, easily correlated references
may not be written down, and recorded
observations are often not detailed enough and
may be worded unclearly. Considerable time is
required to resolve all the inconsistencies.
Since data integration and validation is labor
intensive, an operator should plan to collect
observations that will help establish the
following:

A known position in four dimensional space

(x, y, z, & time).

The change in performance of the cathodic

protection system (coating and applied
potentials).

The remaining wall thickness at specific

locations.

The changes in corrosion rates (cumulative

time where there was no applied cathodic
protection, changes to anode beds, potential
observations, current observations by
historical record or electrical bills, etc).

Poor Pre-Assessment data will lead to

increased uncertainty, and could lead to more
work later in the process which is expensive.
Examples of uncertainty may include:

The start and finish of each ECDA region.

The estimate of the scheduled and monitored

defect sizes "left behind" after the ECDA
evaluation.

The corrosion rates of these defects (which

drives the re-evaluation period).

Therefore properly collected and analyzed prior

history:

Reduces the number of segments where

ECDA would be found ineffective.

Improves the estimation of the sizes of the

indications left unexcavated (estimated

defect geometry) and therefore reduces the

number of necessary confirmatory digs,
possibly leading to an extension of the
number of years between ECDA
evaluations.

Can replace the default (accelerated)

corrosion rate estimates in NACE ECDA RP
0502 with actual rates and extend the
number of years between ECDA
evaluations.

Initial procedures included in the protocol

included steps to assign the pipeline into
segments, recording of the High Consequence
Areas (HCA's) as determined by OPS
procedures, and the collection of data element
information for an entire segment.
In order to assist with the data collection,
integration, and analysis of the pipeline segment
Pre-Assessment data, a comprehensive Date
Element Table (DET) was developed. The table
is formatted in a user friendly manner in
electronic spreadsheet form. It includes all of
the data elements listed in the NACE ECDA RP
and additional fields that were felt to be
important by the companies participating in the
research program. A sample of the first data
element is shown in Fig. 1 below.

Elem ent #

1.1

Data Elem ent from NACE RP

0502 Table-1

Material and grade

Element Units/Form

steel, e.g. B, X42, X60, etc.

1. Value/Data

The completed DET conveniently locates the

Pre-Assessment data for each region in one spot,
along with the reasoning and justifications for
the choices made for region selection, tool
selection, and assignment of non-feasible and
feasible ECDA regions.

2. Noted Changes in Element

w ith Time & Space

5. Justification of Tool
Choice (see ECDA RP 0502
Table-2)

6. Element Affect on Indirect

Inspection Tool Selection

7. Element Factors That May

Affect Region Selection

8. Use & Interpretation of

Data Elem ent Inform ation

1 - PIPE RELATED

3. External Corrosion Trend

Analysis (if applicable)

4. Applicable Tools (CIS,

AC/DCVG, Pearson, EM, CellTo-Cell)

The electronic format makes it simple to

update over time, send to personnel in the
company for comment, and customize for
individual operators or segments. Additionally,
the protocol and NACE RP requires that the
segment be broken up into regions for
assignment of indirect inspection tool, etc. A
separate DET is then easily generated for each
region.

CIS __ ACVG ___ DCVG ___

EM ___ Pearson ___
Cell-To-Cell ___

ECDA not appropriate for

nonferrous materials.

Special consideration should

be given to locations w here
dissimilar metals are joined.

Can create local corrosion

cells w hen exposed to the
environment.

9. General Com ments

Fig. 1. Example of Data Element Table Format

for fist data element, pipe material and grade.
To improve consistency for the research
project, and future users of the protocol, a row
for
"element
units/form"
was
added.
Additionally, there are cells/rows to note
changes in the data element with time and space,
to record external corrosion trend analysis,
justify one's tool choice, and record general
comments.

ECDA Indirect Inspection Step

The objective of this step of the
protocol/standard is to use above ground tools to
identify and define the severity of coating faults,
other anomalies, and areas at which corrosion
activity may have occurred or may be occurring.
This comprehensive step is broken down into
four activities:

Conduct indirect inspections.

Identify and
inspections.

Classify the severity of each indication.

Compare results for consistency of: 1) each

indication with another; 2) indications with
preliminary direct exams if done; and 3)
indications with Pre-Assessment data.

align

indications

from

This process depends on being able to align

the inspection results and identify change. In
order to determine if indications are minor,
moderate, or severe, there must be a noticeable
difference from prior observation, inspections,
or measurements, therefore resolution and
consistency must also be addressed.
Observational differences are only possible if
they exceed the resolution of the process being

measured.
The volt/amp-meter should be
capable of resolving several orders of magnitude
greater than the uncertainties introduced by the
current traveling through the inhomogeneous
pipe to soil path. The developed protocol
suggests an observation resolution basis to set
reasonable criteria for the identification and
classification of minor, moderate, and severe
indications.
Inspections are done by different individuals
and also by different services providers over
time. They also probably have used standards
which have changed over time. It is important
to understand the uncertainty associated with
each, in order to reliably determine the
classifications for minor, moderate, and severe
indications.
Interval spacing for indirect inspections should
be close enough to permit a detailed assessment.
The tool selected should be able to detect and
locate suspected corrosion activity on the
segment.
For the research program the
recommended interval spacing and measurement
units are listed in Table 1 below:
Table 1 - Recommended Interval Spacing and
Measurement Units
RECOMMENDED
TOOL

CIS
DCVG
PEARSON

PCM 1 (EM, AC
Current
Attenuation)

C-Scan (EM,
AC Current
Attenuation)

INTERVAL
SPACING (FT)

MEASUREMENT
UNITS

3 to 10

mV (CSE)

3 to 6

% IR
cathodic/anodic

15 to 25

% of total signal

Maximum
depends on
conditions
Narrowed
Down 60-150
Min 10-15
Maximum
depends on
conditions
Narrowed
Down 60-150
Min 10-15

% drop in signal
current vs.
distance

% drop in signal
current vs.
distance

Cell-To-Cell

4-Pin Resistivity

10 to 20

mV shift: reverse
in polarity2

Start, Finish,
1/3, 2/3
distance along
region length

ohm-cm

Notes:
1. AC current attenuation is performed in a
continuous manner over the line, varying the
distance from transmitter to receiver (usually start
at least 25 ft from transmitter).
2. Soil resistivity effects sensitivity.
3. 4-Pin resistivity is not an indirect inspection tool,
but will be required for this program.

Timing of inspections should be conducted as

close together in time as practical. For the
program it was recommended that the
inspections be done within the same week to
minimize weather variations. Additionally, no
major changes to the segment should be made
between the first and second tool used for
inspection, e.g. installation or abandonment of
pipeline facilities.
Aboveground location measurements should
be referenced to precise geographical locations
(e.g., Global Positioning Systems - GPS) or
permanent geographical features (e.g., edge of a
road or test station). These above ground
references should be clearly documented so that
the above and below ground locations can be
aligned and used to identify excavation sites.
The use of a large number of easily located
aboveground reference points, as noted directly
above, will reduce spatial errors in overlaying
the various inspection results. For the program,
it was recommended to have an easily identified,
aboveground
reference
point/marker
approximately every 300 feet. They should be
permanent in nature, e.g. gas valve location,
manhole cover, telephone pole, fire hydrant, etc.
Once the data is aligned, it is analyzed to
determine if any "indications" exist:
An
indication is defined as information sufficient to
locate coating faults regardless of corrosion
activity at the fault.

For the program, an "indication" is defined as

a change in signal strength (upset condition)
which is at least five times the resolution of the
equipment being used to conduct the inspection.
One must also take into account the specific
background electromagnetic "noise" at each site.
Prehistory will help with setting the threshold
values chosen for "indications".
Each
assessment will have unique characteristics
associated with it that may require special
considerations for data collection and analysis.

Table 2 - Severity Classification Table

Measurement Amplitude Change Of
Indication (In Units of Measurement
Resolution see Table 1)
Tool

MINOR

MODERATE

SEVERE

CIS

Small
Dips,
on & off
potentials
both
> -0.850
(i.e. more
negative)

Medium
Dips, on
potential
> -0.850
(i.e. more
negative)
off potential
< -0.850 (i.e.
less
negative)

Large Dips,
on & off
potentials
both
< -0.850
(i.e. less
negative)

DCVG

1-35%
cathodic
both
on & off

35-50%
cathodic on,
anodic or
neutral off

50-100%
anodic
both
on & off

PEARSON

1-30%

30-65%

65-100%

PCM
(EM, AC
Atten. )

1-30%

30-50%

50-100%

C-Scan
(EM, AC
Current
Atten.)

10-25%

25-60%

60-100%

<10 mV &
(>5000
ohm-cm)

>10 mV &
(3000-5000
ohm-cm)

>10 mV &
(<3000 ohmcm)

>10,000
ohm-cm

3000-10,000
ohm-cm

<3000 ohmcm

Once the indications of coating faults and

active corrosion are identified, they are assigned
a severity classification.
Classification as used in this program is the
process of estimating the likelihood of corrosion
activity at each indication under typical year
round conditions. The program selected the
following classifications to be used: Severe,
Moderate, and Minor.

Severe - highest likelihood of corrosion

activity.

Moderate - possible corrosion activity.

Minor - lowest likelihood of corrosion

activity.

The following Severity Classifications (Table

2) take into account the capabilities of the
inspection tools and for this program was made
as stringent as practical. Table 2 below is an
attempt to quantify the ideas contained within
NACE RP 0502 ECDA. It must be emphasized
that the values listed for the level of severity are
general in nature and can be location specific.
In general, severity should always be based on
comparing data from two or more indirect
inspection methods, history, and conditions
peculiar to the pipeline region under study.

Cell-To-Cell
(with soil
resistivity)
4-Pin
Resistivity

Interestingly, it was very difficult to find

operational criteria for indications with the
ACVG inspection technique. Only a couple
members of the research program had direct
operation experience with this technique.
At the end of the research project, it is
envisioned that the lessons learned from the 15
assessments will be fed back into the developed
protocol. This includes the criteria used for
identification of corrosion indications, tool
interval spacing, and severity classification cut
off values.
Additionally, the improved
understanding of how various indirect inspection
tools perform under specific pipeline and
environmental conditions will be compiled and
sent to NACE to aid operators in tool selection.

Conclusions
1) Operators are required to develop
implementation plans/protocols for direct
assessment if they plan to use it. This
requires a formal stating of indication
criteria, classification criteria, etc.
2) There are a variety of above ground
inspection tools described in NACE RP0502
however their usefulness in various terrains
needs to have better performance numbers
than found in the standard.
3) Consistency needs to be improved in data
collection and manipulation for the PreAssessment step.
4) Consistency needs to be improved in
conducting and reporting the indications
from above ground inspections CIS, DCVG,
etc.
5) The ECDA process is a work in progress
and its successful implementation requires
the input and sharing of information from all
stakeholders.
Acknowledgements
This paper would not be possible without the
direct support of the thirty participant companies
in the associated research collaboration, AGA,
and GTI.
References
1. NACE RP 0502-2002, Pipeline External
Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology,
NACE International, Houston, TX, 2002.
2. External Corrosion Direct Assessment
(ECDA) Implementation Protocol (draft),
GTI/AGA Research Collaboration, "Pipeline
Integrity Management for Natural Gas
Transmission Lines Operated by Local
Distribution Companies", 2003.

3. ASME B 31.8S-2001, Managing System

Integrity of Gas Pipelines, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2002.