Volume 3: Materials Technology; Ocean Space Utilization 2013
DOI: 10.1115/omae2013-11168
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of the Uncertainties in the Inspection Results of Ultrasonic Intelligent Pigs

Abstract: In-Line Inspections using magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and the Ultrasonic (UT) intelligent pigs are the most common tools used to assess the integrity of pipelines. But, both MFL and UT inspection results are subject to various sources of uncertainties which must be quantified and accounted for in the integrity assessment of the inspected pipeline. A series of pull-through tests (PTT) of seven MFL tools and two UT tools from five service providers was performed on a 12-inch diameter pipe containing pre-existing… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Typical in-pipe robots are divided into wheel-driven robots, tractor/track-driven robots and fluid-powered robots, according to different driving mechanisms in conventional locomotion [5][6][7]. For example, the pipeline inspection gauge (PIG) [8] is a type of passive robot equipped with magnetic flux leakage (MFL) [9], ultrasonic testing (UT) [10], eddy currents (ECs) [11], and electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMATs). However, the significant drawbacks are the significantly higher operating cost and indirect observation of defects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typical in-pipe robots are divided into wheel-driven robots, tractor/track-driven robots and fluid-powered robots, according to different driving mechanisms in conventional locomotion [5][6][7]. For example, the pipeline inspection gauge (PIG) [8] is a type of passive robot equipped with magnetic flux leakage (MFL) [9], ultrasonic testing (UT) [10], eddy currents (ECs) [11], and electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMATs). However, the significant drawbacks are the significantly higher operating cost and indirect observation of defects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advanced versions of these autonomous systems, also called “smart PIGs”, can move inside pipelines and measure irregularities that may represent corrosion, cracks, joints, deformation (e.g., dents, pipe ovality), laminations or other defects (e.g., weld defects) in the pipeline. The most common ILI methods that have been installed on smart PIGs and confirmed to be successful for pipeline inspection are magnetic flux leakages (MFL) [20], ultrasonic transducers (UT) [21], electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMAT) [22] and eddy currents (EC) [23]. However, certain constraints seriously limit the practicality of the aforementioned methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Caleyo et al 15 developed a statistical calibration method based on parametric regression estimators to calibrate the measurements of an MFL pig tools using the ultrasonic ILI-reported data and corresponding field measurements. The calibration process was based on comparing the growth of the pipeline defects using the readings of different tools as done by Salama et al 16 Others used the corrosion data from different scans at different times as done by Din et al 14 Abdolrazaghi et al 17 proposed the calibration of MFL-IP with the data of UT scan tool using the linear regression model. The calibration was done based on the readings of three runs of both MFL-IP and UT device.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%