Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

A Comprehensive Approach To Integrity Of Non-Piggable Pipelines Based On

Combined DCVG/CIPS/MTM Survey

A. Mirzoev, CJSC “Aerospace Monitoring and Technologies”, Moscow, Russia

S. Mashurov, CJSC “Aerospace Monitoring and Technologies”, Moscow, Russia
J. Sibila, CORRSTOP Sp. z o.o., Poznan, Poland

Abstract

Integrity management of non-piggable pipelines up to now remains as an essential

challenge for all Operators. For instance in Gazprom, due to diverse causes ILI
technology cannot be applied for 47% of 164,7 thousand kilometers of pipelines. In
addition, for half of those pipelines to run ILI is not economically reasonable.

These pipelines are primarily branch pipelines, as well as part of transmission

pipelines, which were commissioned more than 30 years ago. These assets have
significant value, since they deliver gas to industrial consumers and population.

Widely applicable aboveground survey techniques such as DCVG and CIPS alone,
targeted at evaluation of pipeline coating integrity and CP effectiveness, do not
entirely determine the integrity of non-piggable pipelines. Furthermore, these
methods have limitation – they are not intrinsically sensitive to coating disbondment,
which is considered as one of the significant threats to integrity.

In the meantime, over the last years Magnetic Tomography Method went through
extensive industrial validation. Based on the converse magnetostrictive effect, MTM
defines stress characteristics of pipe sections by registering changes in the magnetic
field of the pipeline. But MTM results in low accuracy for detecting pipe features with
stress level less than 5% of the SMYS (e.g., pitting corrosion).

As an effective instrument for comprehensive integrity assessment of non-piggable

pipelines, authors propose to perform combined DCVG/CIPS/МТМ survey, which
allows to evaluate coating and pipe integrity in one-pass and compensate limitations
of each method. This paper is based on DCVG/CIPS/MTM survey results of
Gazprom pipelines and describes methodological approach to develop an effective
pipeline integrity management plans.

1 Introduction

The length of Russian gas transmission system (GTS) equals more than 164,7
thousand km [1] where large-diameter pipelines make more than half of it (1020-1420
mm) [2]. Most of the existing system can be characterized by high degree of
equipment and infrastructure wear (e.g. by 2015 the average age of gas pipelines will
exceed 30 years). Stress corrosion cracking, external corrosion, corrosion under
insulation and inadequate levels of cathodic protection are the main threats for
integrity of pipelines in Gazprom. These threats in many ways can be mitigated by
implementation of in-line inspection (ILI) technologies.
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

However, due to diverse causes ILI cannot be applied for 47% of pipelines. In
addition, for half of those pipelines to run ILI is not economically reasonable (figure
1). These pipelines are primarily branch pipelines, as well as part of transmission
pipelines, which were commissioned more than 30 years ago. These assets have
significant value, since they deliver gas to industrial consumers and population. Thus,
integrity management of non-piggable pipelines up to now remains as an essential
challenge for all Operators, including Gazprom.

Figure 1: Total length of piggable and non-piggable pipelines in Gazprom

36 234 km
22%
87 291 km
53%

Piggable

To run ILI is
unreasonable

To run ILI
41 175 km reconstruction is
25% needed

In this paper combination of three aboveground survey techniques (Direct Current

Voltage Gradient, Close Interval Potential Survey and Magnetic Tomography
Method) is described together with practical results when using the combined
technique for comprehensive integrity assessment of non-piggable pipelines.
Combined DCVG/CIPS/МТМ survey technique allows to evaluate coating and pipe
integrity in one-pass and compensate limitations of each method.

2 DCVG/CIPS Survey

Nowadays multiple options exist for aboveground surveys to identify areas of

disbonded coating on pipelines using AC or DC principles. These coating
assessment techniques tend to fall into two main categories:
- voltage gradient techniques based on the principle of impressing an alternating
(Pearson and ACVG) or direct (DCVG) current between the pipe and the earth, and
then detecting high potential drop in the neighborhood of a coating holiday;
- AC current attenuation techniques based on the principle of an electrical current
attenuation which is applied to a coated buried pipeline. Its magnitude decreases
gradually as it travels away from the injection point. When a discontinuity is found in
the coating of a buried pipeline the current attenuation changes abruptly because the
dielectric constant of the coating has changed.
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Results of the comprehensive evaluation and validation of existing aboveground

techniques for coating condition assessment, carried out by various institutions
(among others DNV GL) and presented in reports [for instance, 3, 4], pointed that
DCVG was the most accurate survey technique, better able to resolve individual
indications than the other surveys, enable to pinpoint a coating defect epicentre in
the range of ±75 mm [5].

In DCVG, when a DC current is impressed onto a pipeline, there will be an

associated voltage gradient surrounding the pipe. Well coated sections of line have a
high pipeline to ground resistance. Hence, little or no current will flow to these
sections and there will effectively no measurable voltage gradient in the surrounding
soil. However, at sections which are bare or have defective coatings, the pipe-to-soil
resistance is reduced. Consequently, there is a marked increase in current flowing to
these sections of line resulting in voltage gradients around the bare or defective area.
The larger the defect the lower the resistance and therefore the higher the voltage
gradient for a given soil resistivity. Thus coating defects can be detected by
measuring the potential between an over-the-line electrode and one laterally offset.

As a defect is approached it will be seen on the DCVG measuring tool as a changing

potential which is in phase with the applied signal. The magnitude of the swing is the
potential difference between probes as a result of applied signal. Operator then
locates the epicentre of the defect which is identified by a zero deflection on the
meter. This occurs when the probes straddle the epicentre of the defect i.e. lie on the
equipotential line of the potential field of the defect. The operator then measures the
potential from over the line to remote earth as well as the soil resistivity of adjacent
earth.

According to [5] the DCVG signal strength should be adequate to enable the
surveyor to detect small indications distant from the CP current source. Typical
DCVG signal magnitudes measured to remote earth range between 100 and 1,500
mV in soil environments. In DCVG, CP interrupting cycle is set in accordance with
manufacturer’s or operator’s procedures and typically is 0,7 sec ON and 0,3 sec
OFF.

Indication pipe to remote earth DCVG signal magnitudes (P/RE) are calculated using
equation (1):

d x ⋅ ( S1 − S2 )
P / RE = S1 + , (1)
d 2 − d1

Where: P/RE - pipe to remote earth DCVG signal magnitude (mV); S1 - DCVG signal
amplitude to remote earth at Test Station 1 (mV); S2 - DCVG signal amplitude to
remote earth at Test Station 2 (mV); d1 - distance measurement of Test Station 1
(This is zero at the beginning of a survey.) (m); d2 - distance measurement of Test
Station 2 (m); dx - distance measurement of indication from Test Station 1 (m).
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Once an indication is located, its severity index (%IR) is estimated by measuring the
potential difference from the indication epicenter to remote earth (OL/RE). This
potential difference is then expressed as a percentage of the total calculated
potential shift on the pipeline at the indication location (P/RE), as shown in equation
(2):

OL / RE ⋅100
% IR = , (2)
P / RE

The following classification of the defects by the severity index was adopted:

Category 1 – the defects with %IR above 35% needed to be repaired;

Category 2 – the defects with %IR in range between 16 and 35% should be
taken into consideration as possibly deserving repair;

Category 3 – the defects with %IR under 15% are small and they do not need
to be repaired.

To add value to the data collected during DCVG survey, attempts have been made to
combine coating-fault location with CP pipe-to-soil potential measurements in
DCVG/CIPS hybrid technique. The close interval potential survey (CIPS) alone is not
classified as a coating assessment tool and rather is a cathodic protection system
assessment tool, but data from CIPS is used in coating condition assessments.
Modern digital data loggers allows to run DCVG and CIPS survey simultaneously
during one pass along the pipeline route, as well as to detect defects/holidays in the
pipeline coating and, most importantly, to measure the “ON” and “OFF” potentials
along pipeline with step approximately 1 m, and at all defects epicentres. Thus, in
addition hybrid DCVG/CIPS survey allows to determine whether the exposed pipeline
wall is effectively protected by CP system.

In response to hybrid DCVG/CIPS survey, the CP criteria was adopted as a crucial

factor for qualifying the defect as needed to be repaired. According to potential
criteria included in the European Standard EN 12954 [6], the OFF potential near the
defect epicentre more negative than:

-0,85V for soil with resistivity less than 100 Ωm;

-0,75V for soil by resistivity in the 100÷1000 Ωm range;

-0,65V for soil resistivity higher than 1000 Ωm;
proves the effectiveness of applied cathodic protection system and coating defect
despite high %IR (for instance, cat. 1) values does not need to be repaired.

However, by today in Russia this method has not been widely implemented due to
misthought that DCVG is not efficient for the multiline gas transmission systems.

For the confirmation of DCVG method performance on the multiline gas transmission
systems, during the period between August 4th-15th, 2014 AMT organized a
demonstration DCVG/CIPS survey on “Gazprom transgaz S. Petersburg”
(Gazprom''s gas transmission subsidiary) pipelines. To participate in the project were
invited three companies such as:
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

- Geoinvirex (Poznan, Poland) – survey company;

- Corrstop (Warszawa, Poland) – survey company;
- Cathodic Technology Ltd. (Ontario, Canada) – corrosion control equipment
producer.

Geoinvirex and Corrstop possesses with an enormous hands-on experience in

DCVG/CIPS field inspections of pipelines within Europe and USA. It is important to
indicate that companies are working with different set of equipment. Geoinvirex uses
analogue DCVG-meter and digital data logger Quantum CIPS, manufactured by
DCVG Ltd. (UK). Meanwhile, Corrstop perform surveys using Cathodic Technology
Ltd. (Canada) tools such as Hexcorder MM, SmartLogger II, etc. Both DCVG Ltd.
and Cathodic Technology Ltd. are major players on DCVG (true “Mulvany” DCVG)
equipment market. Thus, in our demonstration project we invited two survey teams,
equipped with two different set of tools.

As an object of inspection Operator proposed transmission pipeline and branch

pipeline, which are laid in 5-line corridor. Both pipelines were with tape coating and
wrap. The total length of surveyed pipeline sections is 4’078 m.

Notwithstanding that, both survey teams demonstrated one and the same method,
implemented measurement schemes were distinguished and reflected the specificity
of the equipment which was used by both teams. Figure one shows technological
scheme used by Survey Team #1 and Survey Team #2.

Figure 2: Technological schemes of the DCVG/CIPS survey implemented by Survey

Team #1 (a) and Survey Team #2 (b)
a)
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

b)

The number of defects detected by each survey team on transmission pipeline is

presented in table 1.

Table 1: Demonstration DCVG/CIPS survey results on 3 km transmission pipeline

Number of detected defects
Survey Team #2
%IR classification Survey Team #1
(Corrstop/Cathodic
(Geoinvirex)
Technology Ltd.)
Category 1 (> 35% IRrel) 5 5
Category 2 (15 - 35% IRrel) 3 14
Category 3 (<15% IRrel) 15 132
TOTAL: 23 151

Overall, no noticeable coating defects on surveyed pipeline sections were detected.

According to classification given above, all of detected defects are effectively
protected and fulfill the EN 12954 [6] criteria. In all five Cat. 1 defects the OFF
potential is more negative than required by the standard [6]. Even in the "heaviest"
defect No. 60 with severity index %IR 48.16% measured potentials are: ON: -1066
mV and OFF: -909 mV. Closer comparison reveals the following:
- both teams with confidence detected defects with severity index more than 35%;
- difference between quantity of detected defects are result of higher detection
sensitivity of digital Hexcorder MM tool (Survey Team #2), which is capable to
localize even small size defects;
- essential disadvantage of analog DCVG meter (Survey Team #1) is a usage of peg
when the defect is identified and impossibility of delivering digital data. The
significance of whether a defect is pegged or not is of less importance in the case of
Hexcorder MM tool (Survey Team #2) since we have a graphical records to fall back
on;
- low speed performance of Survey Team #1 which approximately composed 2-3 km
per day, while Survey Team #2 migrated 5-6 km per day. Furthermore, in the Survey
Team #1, 6 surveyors were involved, while in the Survey Team #2, only 4. These
factors are crucial for Gazprom, since its annual corrosion survey plan amounts
about 30 000 km.
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Along with Gazprom VNIIGAZ excavation program was developed to validate the
results of each team. Unfortunately, considering series of restrictions from the
Operator’s side (pipeline is located on the border with Republic of Belarus and
exports gas directly to Western Europe countries, thus gas transport interruption is
not encouraged) there were only 4 excavations executed. Excavation results
demonstrated on figure 3 validated the presence of coating defects, qualitative
parameters (%IR) and position against the centerline as described in reports of both
companies (Geoinvirex and Corrstop). Consequently, it became obvious for Gazprom
that DCVG technique could be effectively applied for surveying multiline gas
pipelines with extensive CP system.

Figure 3: Transmission pipeline excavation results: def. #11, diam. 120 mm (a);
def. #82, 100х90 mm (b); def. #5/8, 1200х600 mm (c)

a) b)

c)
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Regardless of successful results of the pilot project, DCVG and DCVG/CIPS hybrid
techniques have number of limitations among which low sensitivity to coating
disbondment, which is considered as one of the significant threats to integrity of
pipelines, operated by Gazprom. In fact, gas pipelines with tape coating make 70-
80% of total length and 95% of large diameter pipelines. Lifetime of such coating
lasts only 8-12 years and most of operating pipelines exceed this age.

3 MTM Survey

Magnetic Tomography Method (MTM) was developed in early 2000s and is patented
in Russia, Malaysia, USA, and Canada. MTM is based on the inverse
magnetostrictive effect (Villari effect) - the change of the magnetic susceptibility of a
material when subjected to a mechanical stress. Method uses “natural”
magnetization of the ferrous pipes by magnetic field of the Earth.

Magnetic tomography charts the attributes and characteristics of pipe sections by

registering and analyzing changes in the magnetic field of the pipeline (figure 4).
These changes are related to stress which in turn are related to defects in the metal.
Magnetic measurements data is collected from the ground surface and anomalies
detected are a function of stress, mechanical loading and structural changes in the
metal.

MTM does not measure the dimensions of geometric defects alone but instead it
measures the stress caused by these defects and identifies their character, location
and orientation in accordance with the location and orientation of the stress
concentration area. Linear and angular coordinates of flaws in the metal and coating
are defined within a tolerance of +/-0,25m.

Figure 4: MTM scanning process

 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

MTM Identifies and analyzes magnetic field anomalies in areas with stress
concentrators due to:

Defects or changes in structural conditions (such as metal loss, cracks, dents,
lamination and inclusions);

Excessive mechanical stress caused by erosion, seismic activity, or third party
damage;

Combination of the above.

The significant advantage of the method is that MTM does not require any
preparation of the pipeline for inspection such as cleaning, opening the pipe, or
interrupting pipeline operation. Magnetic field measurements are performed while
pipeline operating as usual.

Evolution of this method in Russia is mostly connected with introduction of RD 102-

008-2002 [7] practical guidance, developed by VNIIST (Transneft research center) in
early 2000s. The practical guidance describes remote megnetometric survey
procedures, requirements for equipment and survey outcomes.

According to [7] magnetic anomalies assessment is performed based on integrity

index F, corresponding to extension of magnetic anomaly S, m; amplitude and
distribution structure of magnetic field vector. Integrated index F reflects exceedance
of registered values over baseline; density of peak values and their distribution
pattern. The index is derived from the following equation (3):

F=(F+1)e-ka/S (3)

Where: А – number of stress concentration lines in magnetic anomaly zone; S – the

length of magnetic anomaly, defined by number of measurement points of magnetic
field (number of MTM scan intervals) m; К – stress concentration ratio in magnetic
anomaly zone; a – coefficient , accounting for no-failure life, calculated based on
following formula (4):

α=ln(Pop/Pd)/(Тs-Тc) (4)

Wherer Рop - operating pressure by the survey time; Ро - design pressure; Тs - date
of survey; Тc – date of commissioning.

According to [7] MTM anomalies can be classified by three ranks depending on index
F calculations as it is demonstrated in table 2.
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Table 2: Magnetic anomalies classification according to index F

Index F Anomaly Rank Assessment

0,75 ≤ F ≤ 1,0 3 APPROPRIATE

0,45 ≤ F < 0,75 2 ALLOWABLE

F < 0,45 1 UNACCEPTABLE

Over the last years MTM survey technique went through extensive industrial
validation on more than 17 000 km of Gazprom, Transneft, TNK-ВР and Lukoil
pipelines. Most remarkable were the results of branch pipeline “Kolomna-II” survey in
2014 [8]. This pipeline is operated by “Gazprom transgaz Moscow”. On 2.3 km
pipeline section 563 magnetic anomalies (stress concentration areas) were detected:
11 – 1st rank, 56 – 2nd rank, 496 – 3rd rank. Based on the MTM survey results
operator has done 120 excavations and replaced 670 m of pipeline due to extensive
corrosion damages (more than 50% of wall thickness). Some of the excavations
results are presented on Figure 5.

Figure 5: Results of excavations on “Kolomna-II” branch pipeline

Data obtained during the verification on “Kolomna-II” branch pipeline enabled to

calculate statistical performance parameters listed in table 3.
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Table 3: Statistical MTM performance parameters on “Kolomna-II” branch pipeline

(calculated through 120 excavations)
Performance
1st rank anomaly 2nd rank anomaly
parameter
Probability of
87% 85%
Detection POD
Probability of
Identification 77% 75%
POI
Probability of
False Call 9% 10.7%
POFC

Like any other technique, MTM has several limitations:

Deviation if magnetometer when it far from pipeline (>15D);

Deviation associated with residual over magnetization of pipeline due to
production effects or ILI;

Need 1-2 pits for calibration;

Deviation generated by magnetic masses, located close to pipeline (<1D).

The most significant limitation is that MTM results in low accuracy for detecting pipe
features with stress level less than 5% of the SMYS (e.g., pitting corrosion). The
same pattern is observed when actual mechanical stress is more than SMYS. In
addition it should be noted, that the method to the date remains as indicative, not
allowing to evaluate absolute values of stresses in pipe wall in defect area, type of a
defect and its dimensions, as well as significantly depend on proficiency of data
interpreter.

4 Combined DCVG/CIPS/MTM Survey

Given above investigation of aboveground techniques and their inherent limitations

bring AMT to present on market the combined survey technique - DCVG/CIPS/MTM -
as an effective instrument for comprehensive integrity assessment of non-piggable
pipelines. Combined DCVG/CIPS/МТМ corrosion survey allows:

To compensate limitations of each method (DCVG/CIPS and MTM);

To evaluate coating and pipe integrity in one-pass;

To conduct survey with same conditions (soil moisture, temperature, weather,
etc.);

To align data easily since all records are assigned to only linear reference
system;

To increase the confidence level of MTM data interpretation.

Corrosion survey process using combined DCVG/CIPS/MTM technique engages five

main steps: design, operation and survey data gathering; DCVG/CIPS/MTM survey;
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

direct assessment (excavations); FFP analysis; development of rehabilitation plan.

Figure 6 illustrates a typical DCVG/CIPS/MTM survey process scheme, where five
surveyors are involved.

Figure 6: Typical DCVG/CIPS/MTM survey process scheme

Excavation program for pipeline direct assessment is developed based on

DCVG/CIPS/MTM measurements considering integral parameter KƩ, which is
calculated by formula (5):

К     ∙  (5)

Where K∑ - integral parameter – the sum of pipeline integrity factors; Gi(li ) – value of
i-factor; ξi - weight coefficient of i-factor.

Integrity factors and their weights are listed in table 4. The maximum of K∑ responds
to high consequences area, where excavations should be done in the first instance.
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Table 4: Factors and recommended weight coefficients according to standard

R Gazprom 2-2.3-756-2013

Factor Weight
Factor
identifier coefficient ξ

Coating condition (severity index %IR) Gп 0,25

Ground-water level Gу 0,15
Cyclic soils wetting Gс 0,15
Stress condition (MTM anomaly) Gs 0,15
Type of soil Gг 0,10

Soil resistivity Gρ 0,05

CP effectiveness Gэ 0,15

With confidence in the accuracy of the data generated by direct assessment

procedure, an operator can go forward by utilising FFP methods (RSTRENG, DNV,
ANSI/ASME B31g, STO Gazprom 2-2.3-112-2007, etc.) and make decisions relating
to the current and future integrity of a pipeline, remaining life assessment. Figure 7
shows the results of typical FFP analysis of pipeline inspection data.

Figure 7: FFP assessment and investigation / remaining life calculation

Detailed consideration of DCVG/CIPS/MTM survey data enables to identify “hot-

spots”, where appropriate preventative maintenance and inspection activities should
be held (as it shown on figure 8).
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

Figure 8: Decision matrix for developing an effective pipeline rehabilitation plan

MTM: ANOMALY RANK
DCVG/CIPS: SEVERITY INDEX %IR 1 2 3

No sufficient

DCVG/CIPS: CP EFFECTIVENESS
70 - 100%
protection

Partially
16 - 69% cathodically
protected

Cathodically
0 - 15%
protected

5 Conclusions

The preceding sections summarize experience of implementation DCVG/CIPS and

MTM survey techniques in Russia, where multiline gas pipeline transmission systems
with extensive CP system are operated. Over the last years these two survey
techniques went through extensive industrial validation resulted in proved efficiency.
However, inherent limitations disable implementation of DCVG/CIPS and MTM alone
to determine entirely the integrity of non-piggable pipelines.

It became the result that AMT has presented on market the combined survey
technique - DCVG/CIPS/MTM - as an effective instrument for comprehensive
integrity assessment of non-piggable pipelines. The results that can be achieved
from this combined technique are to:

Compensate limitations of each method;

Provide a qualified statement on the current condition and integrity;

Identify active degradation mechanisms and assess probable causes of
corrosion;

Recommend appropriate corrosion mitigation and control strategies;

Calculate remaining safe working life;

Define effective integrity management plan (pipeline and/or coating).

For the moment, together with Gazprom the DCVG/CIPS/MTM method has been
actively developed. By 2016, AMT expects that combined survey technique, as an
effective instrument to maintain safety and reliability of assets, will be a part of
integrity management plans of many Operators in Russia.
 Pipeline Technology Conference 2015

6 References

1. Aksyutin, O.E. Better operating performance for Gazprom's gas transmission

system // Gazovaya Promyshlennost'.- 2010.- 03/643/2010.- p. 23-25.
2. Aksyutin, O.E. Gas transmission system development and training engineers /
O.E. Aksyutin, A.S. Lopatin, G.G. Vasil’ev // Gazovaya Promyshlennost'.- 2010.-
13/644/2010.- p. 31-35.
3. Borek, H. A practical comparison of above ground techniques for coating
defect delinеation / H. Borek, J.M. Leeds // Industrial Corrosion.- 1988.- March/April.-
P. 14-21.
4. Ruschau, G. Evaluation and validation of aboveground techniques for coating
condition assessment / G. Ruschau, A. Kowalski // Final report DTRS56-05-T-0004.-
CC Technologies (A DNV Company).- 2006.- 63 pages.
5. NACE Standard Practice TM0109-2009. Aboveground survey techniques for
the evaluation of underground pipeline coating condition.- 2009.- 36 pages.
6. EN 12954:2001. Cathodic protection of buried or immersed metallic structures.
7. RD 102-008-2002. Guidance for pipeline inspection using remote
megnetometric method.- 2002.- 53 pages.
8. Sidorov, S.A. Results of MTM survey of Kolomna-II branch pipeline / Annual
Gazprom corrosion departments meeting, Sochi.- 2014.
9. R Gazprom 2-2.3-756-2013. Inspection of branch pipelines. Basic framework.-
2013.- 54 pages.