GRI-04/0093.

PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING AN

EXTERNAL CORROSION DIRECT ASSESSMENT
(ECDA) PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
Daniel Powell, P.Eng., Mike Bongiovi, Mike Baezner, Marvin Miller, and Delyn Houder
Corrpro Companies, Inc., 7000 B Hollister, Houston, Texas 77040

Prepared for
GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
GRI contract 8715
GTI Project Manager
Steve Foh
1700 South Mount Prospect Road
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018

December 2004

LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Corrpro Companies, Inc. as an account of work sponsored by Gas
Technology Institute (GTI). Neither GTI, members of GTI, nor any person acting on behalf of
either:
a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this
report, or that the use of any information, apparatus,, method, or process
disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights, or
b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for any and all damages
resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process
disclosed in this report.

External Corrosion Direct Assessment

ii

Form Approved
OMB No. 074-0188

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188),
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to an penalty
for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY

4.

2. REPORT TYPE
Final Report

3. DATED
December 31, 2004
5. FUNDING NUMBER

TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Practical Guidelines for Conducting an External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) Program

GRI Contract Number

GRI-04/0093.6

6.

AUTHOR(S)

Daniel Powell, P.Eng., Mike Bongiovi, Mike Baezner, Marvin Miller, and Delyn Houder

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMES(S) AND ADDRESS(S)

Corrpro Companies, Inc.
7000 B Hollister
Houston, Texas 77040

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Gas Technology Institute
Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.
1700 South Mount Prospect Road
1401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1101
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
Arlington, Virginia 22209

10. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT

NUMBER
GRI-04/0093.6

Steve Foh GTI Project Manager

Harvey Haines (Kiefner & Associates) PRCI Project Manager
11. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
12. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prepared by Corrpro Companies, Inc. for GTI through PRCI. Harvey Haines of Kiefner & Associates served as Project Manager for PRCI.
13. ABSTRACT
This document provides Practical Guidelines for Conducting an External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) Program. The purpose of integrity
assessments of gas transmission or liquids pipelines is to minimize hazards to the general public, minimize pipeline leaks and spills, ensure continuous
operations of the pipelines, optimize expenditures for reducing risk, and satisfying governmental regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to
provide a bridge to help pipeline professionals follow NACE RP 0502-2002 (Standard Recommended Practice Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment
Methodology) and conduct pipeline integrity assessments for their pipeline systems.
This document presents the four-step ECDA process, with an appropriate level of details to facilitate pipeline professionals in conducting integrity assessments
using the ECDA process. Numerous figures and tables are presented to emphasize salient points related to integrity assessments for pipelines, using the
ECDA process. Attachments include a questionnaire for collecting relevant data as part of the pre-assessment step and a worksheet to be used during direct
examinations.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
External Corrosion Direct Assessment, ECDA, Pipeline Integrity Management, Practical Guidelines, Pre-Assessment, Indirect Inspections, Close Interval
Potential Surveys, CIPS, CIS, Soil Resistivity, Direct Current Voltage Gradient Surveys, DCVG, AC Current Attenuation Surveys, ACCA, Direct
Examinations, Prioritizations, Number of Digs, Number of Excavations, Remaining Strength Calculations, Root Cause Analysis, Post-Assessment, External
Corrosion Rates, Remaining Life Calculation, Re-Assessment Intervals, Measuring Effectiveness of ECDA Process, Record Keeping, Pre-Assessment
Worksheet, Direct Examination Worksheets
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
17. LIMITATION OF
18. NUMBER
Daniel Powell, P.Eng., Corrpro Companies, Inc.
OF:
ABSTRACT
OF
PAGES
REPORT
ABSTRACT
c. THIS PAGE
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
123
U
U
U
(713) 460-6000

iii

dpowell@Corrpro.com

Acknowledgment of Support from PRCI

Corrosion and Inspection Technical Committee
These pipeline professionals helped in identifying the primary needs for pipeline operators and in
reviewing the document to ensure it provided practical guidelines.
Chairman
Jerry Rau

Panhandle Energy

Vice Chairman
Walter Kresic

Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

PRCI Administrator
Marina Q. Smith
Members:
Saeed AL-Malki
Paul Andrews
Thomas J. Cairns, Jr
Darrell Catte
Jules Chorney
Jeffrey Didas
Donald Drake
Karsten Harneshaug
J.E.(Buddy) Hutson
Elden R. Johnson
Charley Jones
Dave Katz
Arto Korpela
Dan Larrington
Mark Linville
Graham Lobley
Michel Meyer
Paul Nichols
Laurie Perry
Gutemberg de Souza Pimenta
Micky Redding
Brad Rigling
Paul W. Sinclair
Wytze Sloterdijk
Albert Teitsma
Albert van Roodselaar
Thomas A. Widin
David M. Williams
Keith Wooten
Bob Worthingham
Timothy Zintel

Saudi Aramco
National Grid Transco
Consumers Energy
Saudi Aramco
TransGas Limited
Colonial Pipeline Company
Exxon Mobil Corporation
GASSCO A.S.
CrossCountry Energy Services LLC
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. (Representing AOPL)
Marathon Ashland Pipe Line LLC
Williams Gas Pipeline
Gasum Oy
Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Consultant Saudi Aramco
Gaz de France - R&D Division
Shell Global Solutions
Southern California Gas Company
Cidade Universitaria - Petrobras
CenterPoint Energy
Texas Gas Transmission LLC
Duke Energy Gas Transmission
N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie
Gas Technology Institute
Chevron Energy Research & Technology Co.
BP p.l.c.
Buckeye Pipe Line Company
ConocoPhillip
TransCanada PipeLines Limited
El Paso Corporation

Associate Members:
Garrett Wilkie
John Ashworth
William (Bill) Denson
Patrick (Pat) Kearns
Mark Olson
Bill Putman
Bryce Brown

BJ Pipeline Inspection Services

Team Industrial Services, Inc.
Team Industrial Services, Inc.
Team Industrial Services, Inc.
Baker Hughes, Inc.
Baker Hughes Inc.
ROSEN

iv

Special Acknowledgement
Special acknowledgment and thanks go to
David McQuilling
Panhandle Energy
David H. Kroon
Corrpro Companies Inc.
For their extensive efforts in reviewing the organization and technical contents of this document,
such that it will be a useful document for pipeline professionals in implementing external
corrosion direct assessment programs to ensure pipeline integrity.

Executive Summary
This document provides Practical Guidelines for Conducting an External Corrosion Direct
Assessment (ECDA) Program. The purpose of integrity assessments of gas transmission or
liquids pipelines is to minimize hazards to the general public, minimize pipeline leaks and spills,
ensure continuous operations of the pipelines, optimize expenditures for reducing risk, and
satisfying governmental regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to provide a
bridge to help pipeline professionals follow NACE RP 0502-2002 (Standard Recommended
Practice Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology) and conduct pipeline
integrity assessments for their pipeline systems.
This document presents the four-step ECDA process, with an appropriate level of details to
facilitate pipeline professionals in conducting integrity assessments using ECDA. The type of
data to be collected in the pre-assessment step is described, along with how that information will
be used. Next, the indirect inspection techniques are presented, along with descriptions of how
the data from the different tools is interpreted and integrated, such that priorities are established
for direct examinations. The direct examinations section includes a discussion of the number of
excavations, which may be required, data collection during the excavation and direct
examination of the buried pipeline, and remaining strength calculations. External corrosion
growth rates and remaining life calculations are presented in the post-assessment, along with
practical examples for determining the appropriate re-assessment intervals. Measures are also
presented for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the ECDA process, helping to ensure
continuous improvement.
Numerous figures and tables are presented to emphasize salient points related to integrity
assessments for pipelines, using the ECDA process. Attachments include a questionnaire for
collecting relevant data as part of the pre-assessment step and a worksheet to be used during
direct examinations.

vi

Practical Guidelines for Conducting an ECDA Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1

Purpose of Integrity Assessments Pipeline Safety....................................................... 1

1.2

Purpose of this Document............................................................................................... 2

1.3

Allowable Methodologies for Demonstrating Pipeline Integrity.................................... 2

1.4

Overview of External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) ....................................... 3

1.5

Applicability of the ECDA Process ................................................................................ 6

2.0

Definitions........................................................................................................................... 6

3.0

Pre-Assessments ................................................................................................................. 6

3.1

Data Collection, Integration and Analysis ...................................................................... 7

3.2
Data Collection and How that Information Will be Used............................................... 7
3.2.1
Pipeline Related Data.............................................................................................. 9
3.2.2
Construction Related Data .................................................................................... 10
3.2.3
Soil and Environmental Conditions ...................................................................... 12
3.2.4
Corrosion Protection Data..................................................................................... 13
3.2.5
Operational and Maintenance Parameters and History......................................... 14
3.3

Feasibility of ECDA Process ........................................................................................ 18

3.4

Selecting the Indirect Inspection Tool .......................................................................... 19

3.5

Selecting /Defining ECDA Regions ............................................................................. 21

3.6

Risk Assessment/Prioritization by Spreadsheet or Commercial Programs .................. 23

4.0

Indirect Inspections........................................................................................................... 24

4.1
Close Interval Potential Surveys................................................................................... 24
4.1.1
Reference Electrodes ............................................................................................ 25
4.1.2
Field Computers and High Impedance Voltmeters............................................... 26
4.1.3
Distance Measurements Along the Pipeline ......................................................... 27
4.1.4
Current Interrupters............................................................................................... 27
4.1.5
Close Interval Potential Survey Techniques ......................................................... 29
4.1.6
Checking the Validity of the CIPS Data ............................................................... 34
4.2
Soil Resistivity and Continuous Ground Conductivity Surveys................................... 38
4.2.1
Soil Resistivity Surveys Wenner 4 Pin Method................................................. 39
4.2.2
Continuous Ground Conductivity Instrumentation............................................... 40
4.2.3
Special Comparison of Wenner 4 Pin and Continuous Conductivity................ 41
4.3

Direct Current Voltage Gradient Surveys..................................................................... 42

vii

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6

Severity of Coating Holidays................................................................................ 43

Advantages and Disadvantages of DCVG Surveys .............................................. 44
How Surveys are Conducted (Procedures) ........................................................... 44
Field Measurements .............................................................................................. 45
Calculating the % IR drop to Determine Severity of Coating Holidays............... 46
Determining the Direction of Current Flow.......................................................... 46

4.4
AC Current Attenuation (ACCA) Surveys ................................................................... 47
4.4.1
Purpose.................................................................................................................. 47
4.4.2
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 48
4.4.3
Data Acquisition ................................................................................................... 49
4.4.4
Theoretical Basis for Interpreting Results ............................................................ 49
4.4.5
Interpretation......................................................................................................... 51
4.5

New Indirect Inspection Techniques Under Development........................................... 52

4.6

Overlaying Results on Spreadsheets and Charts........................................................... 52

4.7

Classification and Prioritization of the Anomalies ....................................................... 54

5.0

Direct Examinations.......................................................................................................... 57

5.1
Purpose.......................................................................................................................... 57
5.1.1
Prioritization ......................................................................................................... 58
5.1.2
Number of Excavations......................................................................................... 58
5.2
Excavation and Data Collection.................................................................................... 62
5.2.1
Locating Position Along Pipeline ......................................................................... 62
5.2.2
Excavations ........................................................................................................... 63
5.2.3
Assess Condition of External Coating .................................................................. 63
5.2.4
Measure Pipe-to-Soil Potential ............................................................................. 64
5.2.5
Measure Soil Resistivity and pH........................................................................... 64
5.2.6
Collect Soil Samples and Groundwater Samples.................................................. 64
5.2.7
Measure pH of Liquids Underneath Disbonded Coating...................................... 64
5.2.8
Remove Coating and Oxides; Measure Depth, Size of Indications...................... 65
5.3

Remaining Strength Calculations ................................................................................. 66

5.4

Root Cause Analysis ..................................................................................................... 67

5.5

In-Process Evaluation ................................................................................................... 68

6.0

Post Assessment................................................................................................................ 71

6.1
Purpose of Post-Assessment ......................................................................................... 71
6.1.1
External Corrosion Growth Rate .......................................................................... 71
6.1.2
Remaining Life Calculation.................................................................................. 72
6.1.3
Examples of Remaining Life Calculations ........................................................... 73
6.2

Defining the Re-Assessment Interval ........................................................................... 76

6.3
Post-Assessment Steps.................................................................................................. 77
6.3.1
Additional Direct Examinations ........................................................................... 77
6.3.2
Measuring the Effectiveness of the ECDA Process.............................................. 77
viii

6.4
7.0

Feedback ....................................................................................................................... 78
Record Keeping Documenting the ECDA Program and Integrity Management........... 79

7.1

Pre-Assessment Documentation ................................................................................... 79

7.2

Indirect Inspection Documentation............................................................................... 80

7.3

Direct Examination Documentation ............................................................................. 81

7.4

Post Assessment Documentation .................................................................................. 82

8.0

References......................................................................................................................... 82

9.0

Attachment A: Overview of ILI for Confirming Pipeline Integrity ................................. 84

10.0

Attachment B: Overview of Pressure Tests for Confirming Pipeline Integrity................ 87

11.0

Attachment C: Definitions of Corrosion Related Terms ................................................. 89

12.0

Attachment D: Questionnaire for Collecting Data to Be Used in Pre-Assessment .......... 98

13.0

Attachment E: Direct Examination Worksheets ............................................................. 105

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Potential Threats to Pipeline Integrity............................................................................. 1
Figure 2 Required Five Categories of Pipeline System Data ........................................................ 8
Figure 3 Cased-Crossing under RR Tracks; High Voltage Transmission Lines Overhead......... 11
Figure 4 Pre-Assessment Step Overview...................................................................................... 16
Figure 5 ECDA Regions along a Pipeline ................................................................................... 22
Figure 6 Cu-CuSO4 Electrodes strapped to Walking Poles ......................................................... 26
Figure 7 Field Computer and Voltmeter for CIPS....................................................................... 26
Figure 8 Hip Chainer to Accurately Measure Distance Along a Pipeline ................................... 27
Figure 9 GPS Interrupter.............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 10 Current Interrupters Installed at Location of the Rectifiers......................................... 28
Figure 11 Current ON Surveys................................................................................................. 30
Figure 12 Slow Cycle CIPS (8 Sec ON-2 Sec OFF) ................................................................... 31
Figure 13 Fast Cycle CIPS (800ms/200 ms)............................................................................... 31
Figure 14 Possible Coating Anomaly Seen in an On/Instant Off Potential Survey ................. 32
Figure 15 Instant Off Readings are Below the 850 mV Criterion ............................................. 33
Figure 16 WFA Potential Survey................................................................................................. 34
Figure 17 Near Ground Measured with the Current ON .......................................................... 35
Figure 18 Far Ground Measured with the Current ON............................................................. 35
Figure 19 Measuring the Metallic IR Drop.................................................................................. 36
Figure 20 Discontinuous Readings Could Indicate Broken Wire................................................ 36
Figure 21 Not all Influencing Currents have been Interrupted .................................................... 37
Figure 22 All Influencing Current Sources have Been Interrupted ............................................. 37
ix

Figure 23 Four Pin Wenner Method for Measuring Soil Resistivity............................................ 39

Figure 24 Electronic Instrumentation Used in Four Pin Soil Resistivity Measurements ............ 40
Figure 25 Test - Comparing Wenner 4 Pin and Continuous Conductivity Surveys................... 42
Figure 26 Typical Results from DCVG Survey of Gas Transmission Pipeline .......................... 43
Figure 27 ACCA Signal Attenuation Versus Distance................................................................ 50
Figure 28 Theoretical Signal Loss per Unit Length along a Pipeline........................................... 51
Figure 29 Actual Signal Loss in mdB/Ft Along a Pipeline .......................................................... 51
Figure 30 Alignment of Indirect Inspection Results.................................................................... 53
Figure 31 Illustration of Minor, Moderate and Severe CIPS Indications .................................... 56
Figure 32 Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Technology in Pipelines ........................................... 85
Figure 33 Ultrasonic (UT) for In-Line Inspections of Pipelines.................................................. 85
Figure 34 Encapsulate Ultrasonic Pig to Maintain Couplant....................................................... 85

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1 Pipeline Related Data to be Collected ............................................................................... 9
Table 2 Construction Related Data to be Collected...................................................................... 10
Table 3 Soil and Environmental Data to be Collected.................................................................. 12
Table 4 Corrosion Protection Related Data to be Collected ......................................................... 13
Table 5 Operations and Maintenance Related Data to be Collected ............................................ 15
Table 6 Guidelines for Selecting Indirect Inspection Techniques ............................................... 20
Table 7 Resistivity and Corrosivity Classifications..................................................................... 38
Table 8 Severity of Coating Holidays........................................................................................... 44
Table 9 Direction of Current Flow in a Holiday.......................................................................... 47
Table 10 Assigning Severity Classification to Indications .......................................................... 56
Table 11 Prioritization of Indications from the Indirect Inspections........................................... 57
Table 12 Data Collected During Direct Examination at ECDA Dig Site.................................... 70
Table 13 Uhligs Corrosion Rates for Steel in Soil (in mpy) ...................................................... 72
Table 14 Maximum Allowable Reassessment Intervals.............................................................. 76

Practical Guidelines for Conducting an ECDA Program

1.0

Introduction

These Practical Guidelines have been written for pipeline professionals, who work either in the
field or at the pipeline offices. The guidelines are intended to help ensure safe pipeline
operations by confirming the integrity of pipelines, using the External Corrosion Direct
Assessment (ECDA) process. Note that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS) has approved the use of the ECDA process for gas transmission pipelines,
and proposed rules changes are underway to extend that to include pipelines transporting liquids.
1.1

Purpose of Integrity Assessments Pipeline Safety

Minimize hazard to the general public

Minimize leaks and spills
Ensure continuous operation of pipelines
Optimize expenditures for reducing risks
Satisfy governmental regulatory requirements

As shown in Figure 1, there are numerous potential threats to the integrity of

pipelines. One of the first challenges is recognizing the potential threats and
establishing a program for assessing the significance of the threats, such that the
appropriate remedial actions can be implemented.
Materials &
Construction
Defects

Corrosion &
Cracking
Mechanisms

Mechanical
Damage

Device Failures
& Malfunctions

Threats to Pipeline Integrity

Other Conditions

Operations

Earth Forces

Weather Related
Effects

Figure 1 Potential Threats to Pipeline Integrity

1.2

Purpose of this Document

1.3

Provide a bridge to help pipeline professionals follow NACE RP-05022002 (Standard Recommended Practice Pipeline External Corrosion
Direct Assessment Methodology) and conduct pipeline integrity
assessments for their pipeline systems
Identify additional reference material (Section 8.0).

Allowable Methodologies for Demonstrating Pipeline Integrity

Pipeline Integrity Management Programs (IMPs) are based on the non-mandatory
Appendix A of ASME B31.8S-2001. The U.S. Federal Government has taken the
ASME B31.8S, Appendix A, a few steps further by mandating the establishment
of IMPs for gas transmission pipelines within the United States. 49 CFR 192.921
is known as the IMP rule within the United States, and the ultimate purpose is to
ensure safe operations of gas transmission pipelines. U.S. pipeline professionals
should follow 49 CFR Part 192 rules and ASME B31.8S Code, while other
pipeline professionals should follow the rules/laws associated with their country
and the ASME B31.8S code.
The ASME B31.8S and the US IMP rule recognize four methodologies for
assessing the integrity of gas transmission pipelines. These are:

In-Line Inspections
Hydrostatic Pressure Tests
Direct Assessments
Other (new) Technology

(Note that at present the U.S. DOT, Office of Pipeline Safety have proposed
rulemaking changes to allow direct assessment methodologies to be applied to
pipelines transporting liquids).
This manual focuses on the use of the direct assessment process to determine the
impact that external corrosion may have had on the integrity of the pipeline.
Attachments A and B to this document provide an overview of in-line inspections
and hydrostatic pressure testing, which have historically been used for confirming
the integrity of pipelines.
The ECDA process may be used to demonstrate the integrity of gas transmission
pipelines. Presently, rule changes have been proposed to allow the ECDA process
to be used for evaluating the integrity of pipelines transporting liquids.
The IMP rule allows use of other equivalent technologies when assessing gas
transmission pipelines. However, the burden of proof is on the pipeline operator
to demonstrate the equivalence of the other technology. The gas transmission

company must notify the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 180 days before
conducting such assessments.
There are several types of Direct Assessments. These include External
Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA), Internal Corrosion Direct
Assessment (ICDA) for dry gas, and Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct
Assessment (SCCDA). Other direct assessment methodologies are under
development, such as those for assessing pipelines that transport wet gas.
This document focuses on the use of ECDA methodology.

1.4

Overview of External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)

External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) is one of several types of direct
assessments. There are also Internal Corrosion Direct Assessments (ICDA) for
dry gas transmission pipelines, Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessments
(SCCDA), and others that are under development. Each direct assessment
methodology consists of a four-step process for systematically evaluating the
particular type of potential threat to the integrity of pipelines. If external
corrosion is considered a potential threat to pipeline integrity, ECDA would be
the appropriate direct assessment method to assess that threat. If stress corrosion
cracking is a concern, SCCDA would be the appropriate direct assessment
methodology. If both external corrosion and stress corrosion cracking are
concerns, both ECDA and SCCDA should be pursued. This manual only
addresses ECDA. (NACE International is scheduled to publish Recommended
Practices for SCCDA and ICDA in late 2004 and early 2005, respectively. RP0204-2004 has been assigned to the SCCDA, while a number has not been
assigned to the ICDA for dry gas transmission pipelines. In addition, ASME
B31.8S-2001 has detailed discussions of the internal corrosion and stress
corrosion cracking threats in Appendix A2 and A3, respectively).
External Corrosion Direct Assessments (ECDA)
ECDA is a four-step process designed to assess the potential threats to pipeline
integrity due to external corrosion. Each of the steps is discussed in subsequent
sections of this manual. The four steps are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Pre-Assessment
Indirect Inspections
Direct Examinations
Post-Assessment
In the Pre-Assessment step, historical and current data are
collected and analyzed to determine whether it is possible to use

the ECDA process. Assuming it is feasible, ECDA regions are

defined, and indirect inspection tools are selected.
In the Indirect Inspections step, above ground surveys are
conducted, using sophisticated instrumentation to detect and
quantify the severity of coating faults. Two different indirect
inspection tools must be used to survey the entire length of a
pipeline through each ECDA region.
In the Direct Examination step, the results from the indirect
inspections are analyzed, and specific sites are selected for direct
examination of the exterior surface of the piping. Following
excavation, the condition of the coating is assessed, and where
necessary, pipeline repairs and corrosion mitigation are
implemented.
In the Post-Assessment step, the data collected from the previous
three steps is evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the
process and to determine the appropriate time interval before the
next pipeline assessment.
ECDA is a continuous improvement process. Previous assessment results should
be used to improve subsequent assessments and enhance system integrity.
Items/costs Associated with Implementing the ECDA Process

Significant time can be required to consolidate and review the historical

records for each pipeline particularly for the first time the data is
consolidated as part of Pre-Assessment.
The expense for conducting indirect inspections is one of the smallest
parts of the total costs. Other components, such as excavating and
analyzing sections of pipe, can be more expensive particularly if it is
necessary to excavate multiple sections in urban areas. Ensure that good
(valid) data is collected in each indirect inspection.
One of the most essential activities related to indirect inspections is to
match (overlay) relevant data, such that data from different indirect
inspection techniques can be compared at points along the pipeline.
(When results from different techniques independently suggest an
anomaly at the same location, it is more likely that the anomaly is real).
It may be possible to overlay the data, using Microsoft Excel. There are
also commercial packages available to do this same overlay.
The direct examinations will require excavations to expose the pipelines at
the location of all immediate indications. It is essential to have a precise
axial location for the indications so as to minimize the size and expense
associated with each excavation. This is particularly critical for
excavations in urban locations, when there may be pressures to

minimize the size of an excavation (so that traffic is not affected), or to

complete the direct examinations and rebury the pipeline quickly.
As required by U.S. 49 CFR 192.933 (d) Special Requirements for
Scheduling Remediation and ASME B31.8S, Section 7, which addresses
the time schedule. That Code requires the pipeline operator to examine all
immediate-rated indications within a period not to exceed five (5) days,
following the determination of the condition (B318S 7.2.1). The U.S.
Rule 192.933 (a) presents the actions that operators must take to address
integrity issues. It states: If an operator is unable to respond within the
time limits for certain conditions specified in this section, the operator
must temporarily reduce the operating pressure or take other action that
ensures the safety of the covered segment. The U.S. rule then presents
the options (within 192.933 (a)), which the operator must take: (i)
determining the temporary reduction in pressure, using ASME B31G, (ii)
determining the temporary reduction in pressure, using AGA Pipeline
Research Committee Project PR-3-805 RSTRENG, or (iii) reducing the
operating pressure to 80% of the operating pressure at the time the
condition was discovered. The reduction in operating pressure cannot
exceed 365 days without providing technical justifications. Based upon
the above referenced rules, many pipeline operators will choose to reduce
operating pressures to 80% of the previous operating levels, immediately
after discovery and until the evaluations have been completed.

Strengths of ECDA Process

ECDA is a non-destructive inspection methodology.

ECDA can be used to inspect and assess pipe, which cannot be pigged or
hydrotested.
ECDA does not require an interruption in service.
ECDA does not require any reduction in flow or change in operations.
ECDA can locate coating anomalies.
The process allows for the evaluation of the effectiveness of cathodic
protection systems.
The ECDA process can identify electrical interference problems along the
pipeline from:
o
Foreign CP systems
o
Transit systems (DC traction power)
o
HVDC transmission lines
o
Geomagnetic (telluric) earth currents
o
Overhead AC power lines

Weakness of ECDA Process

ECDA does not detect metal loss instead it identifies where corrosion is
most likely to occur.

1.5

Applicability of the ECDA Process

2.0

The quality of the pre-assessment is dependent on the quality and

accessibility of pertinent data, and how complete it is.
It may be difficult to apply ECDA to complex, buried piping networks or
to parallel pipelines in shared corridors
There may be limitations for pipelines having disbonded coatings.
It is more difficult and expensive to conduct indirect surveys when the
pipelines are covered by pavement. The surveys may require the
pavement to be cored, to provide access to the underlying soil.
Indirect Inspections are more difficult to conduct in rocky soil or when the
ground is frozen.
For best results the right-of-way needs to be cleared. In some cases, this
may result in crop damage
Property owners need to be notified so that permission to survey is
granted.
Indirect inspection tools typically cannot detect or distinguish corrosion
along the longitudinal seam of a pipeline.
Some pipe seams and welds may have localized attack that may not be
detected using the ECDA process. If this is a concern, the pipeline
operator needs to employ other appropriate evaluation techniques.
The ECDA process requires a number of pipeline excavations and direct
examinations particularly at the location of immediate indications.
Some of these may be at inconvenient locations, such as under major
roadways.

External Corrosion is the threat, which is evaluated by the ECDA Process.

ECDA addresses buried onshore pipeline constructed from ferrous metal.
The ECDA process can be used in conjunction with other assessment
technologies.

Definitions
Please refer to Attachment C, which presents terms and definitions associated with
External Corrosion Direct Assessment. These definitions are from NACE International
Recommended Practices (RP).

3.0

Pre-Assessments

Objectives of Pre-Assessment
o
Determine whether ECDA or other inspection methodologies is most
appropriate, most cost-effective tool or technique for conducting integrity
assessment.
o
Select the appropriate indirect inspection tools if ECDA is to be used.
o
Identify ECDA regions. The same tools must be used throughout each
ECDA region.
6

Determine the number of pipeline excavations and direct examinations

that will be required for ECDA validation.
The Pre-Assessment step requires the collection and review of pipeline design,
construction-related, soil and environmental, corrosion control, and operation and
maintenance data.
o

The Pre-Assessment is perhaps the most critical step for determining whether the ECDA
process can be used for assessing pipeline integrity for external corrosion. If there is not
enough data available for this engineering assessment, then ECDA should not be used.
3.1

Data Collection, Integration and Analysis

Objectives: Collect data in order to:
Determine whether ECDA is feasible for the pipeline to be evaluated.
Select indirect inspection tools.
Identify ECDA regions.
This requires the collection of data, integrating the data, and analyzing the data to
meet the objectives.

3.2

Data Collection and How that Information Will be Used

Purpose: Bring integrity information together for analysis:
Collect historical and current data.
Collect physical information regarding the pipeline segments.
Address five basic categories of data, as shown in Figure 2 and in the
tables.
Note that it is not necessary to utilize all items in the analysis for each
pipeline.
May use that same set of data for general risk ranking, which helps
establish priorities for inspections or remedial work.

If there is insufficient data, you should not use the ECDA process.
Sufficient Data
The NACE RP-0502-2002 states that the pipeline operator will define the
minimum data requirements, based on the history and condition of the pipeline
segment. Each pipeline operator is responsible for the safe operation of its own

system, and thus the decision of what data is needed is to be made by the pipeline
operators, as they are the most knowledgeable about their own systems.
The U.S. IMP rule references Appendix A in ASME/ANSI B31.8S to define the
data that pipeline operators must gather and evaluate. The rule also notes that
past incident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records,
patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records, and all other
conditions specific to each pipeline should be included in the evaluation.
Paragraph A1.2 of ASME B31.8S Appendix 2 identifies the minimum data
requirements as:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)

Year of Installation
Coating Type
Coating Condition
Years With Adequate Cathodic Protection
Years With Questionable Cathodic Protection
Years Without Cathodic Protection
Soil Characteristics
Pipe Inspection Reports (bell hole inspections)
Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) Detected (yes, no,
or unknown)
Leak History
Wall Thickness
Diameter
Operating Stress Level (%SMYS)
Past Hydraulic Test Information

Attachment D to these Guidelines is a questionnaire that helps organize this

information, as well as additional relevant information identified in subsections
3.2.1 through 3.2.5 and illustrated in Figure 2.

Construction Data

Pipeline and
Materials Data

Soils and
Environmental
Data

Corrosion
Control Data

Pipeline System Information

Figure 2 Required Five Categories of Pipeline System Data

Operations and
Maintenance Data

ECDA is applicable only for ferrous metal pipelines. Most of the information, such as the
material specifications, diameter, wall thickness, and SMYS is used in strength calculations. If
fabricated using ERW pipe, the date is critical, as it relates to the susceptibility to SCC. When
SCC is a potential concern, pipeline operators should conduct a SCCDA in addition to ECDA.
It is also critical to know the SMYS of the pipeline relative to the operating pressures, as that
impacts the required inspection intervals.

3.2.1

Pipeline Related Data

Table 1 Pipeline Related Data to be Collected

Factor
Pipe Material Specifications
Pipe Manufacturer

Pipeline Design Pressures

Pipe Seam Type (Seamless,
ERW, Lap)

Diameter
Wall Thickness
Specified Minimum Yield
Strength (SMYS)

Relevance
Defines the strength of the
material
Near neutral pH SCC has been
found preferentially in the
HAZ of ERW pipe
manufactured by Youngstown
Sheet and Tube in the 1950s
Near neutral pH SCC has been
found preferentially under
tented tape coatings along
DSA welds and in HAZs
along some electrical
resistance welds
Used in Strength Calculations
Used in Strength Calculations

Use and Interpretation

Ranking
A

This can be an important predictive

factor if SCC is possible

This may be an important factor for

near neutral pH SCC, if the conditions
suggest the possibility of stress
corrosion cracking and SCCDA

The maximum reassessment interval is

determined by comparing pipeline
operating conditions to the % SMYS

A
C

A
A
A

3.2.2

Construction Related Data

Table 2 Construction Related Data to be Collected

Factor
Year of Construction
Route Maps
Identify Location of HCAs
Location of Test Stations,
Rectifiers. Valves, Clamps
Isolation Points
Location of CP Bonds
Route Changes and
Reasons for the
Modifications
External Coatings Pipe
External Coatings Joints

Construction Technique
(Open trench vs. bore)
Padding and Backfill
Depth of Cover

Sections Under Rivers

Locations of any Anchors
or Weights
Locations of any Casings
Location of high voltage
electric transmission lines
Hydrostatic Test records

Relevance
Coatings may degrade over time
Necessary for locating pipes and
conducting indirect inspections
Conduct assessments within
HCAs
Essential for conducting indirect
inspections
Separate CP systems on opposite
sides of isolation
Essential for Indirect Inspections
Essential for tracing pipeline;
Modifications may suggest new
identified sites or possible areas
of active corrosion
Good coatings lower demands on
CP systems
Near Neutral and High pH SCC
have been found under asphalt,
and tape wraps; High pH SCC
also found under coal tars.
If coated pipe is bored through
soil, there is more chance to
damage coating
Rocky soil is more likely to tear
coatings, vs. sand
Directly relates to the spacing
between indirect inspection
measurements, such that the
surveys can be continuous
Water may shorten the lifetime of
a coating, and can aid corrosion
process
It may be difficult to inspect
underneath Anchors. Separate
ECDA regions?
May necessitate separate ECDA
regions and the use of alternative
tools
Possible AC interference
Usually not critical, except within
7 years, following construction

10

Use and Interpretation

Ranking
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

A
A

C
B
A

A
A
A
A
C

It is essential to know as much information about the pipeline as possible before

selecting the indirect inspection tools. Often it will be necessary to electrically connect
the inspection equipment to the pipelines. Hence, the location of all test stations,
rectifiers, valves, bonds between pipes, and points of electrical isolation will need to be
known. It will also be essential to identify the tie-ins for all rectifiers, such that currents
can be interrupted briefly when conducting the surveys. If the pipe was laid on a bed of
sand and covered with additional sand before backfill, it is less likely that rocks within
the backfill could have damaged the external coating. Thus, lower currents would be
needed for the cathodic protection. If sections of the piping are within sections of larger
diameter piping, i.e., casings at road crossings, the precise locations need to be known,
and alternate inspection techniques may be required. If there are high voltage electric
transmission lines within the pipeline right-of-way, they should be identified, as such
AC currents may affect the choice of indirect inspection tools. Note for U.S. pipeline
professionals: The surveys will focus upon the High Consequence Areas (HCAs).
Refer to U.S. 49 CFR Part 192 Appendix E for guidance on determining HCAs and
carrying out the requirements of the IMP rule.

Be sure to inspect the pipeline Right-of-Way to identify any significant

features not depicted in the pipeline drawings that could affect pipeline
survey results. Know the type of terrain along the pipeline, and use
that information when defining the ECDA regions.

Figure 3 Cased-Crossing under RR Tracks; High Voltage Transmission Lines Overhead

Observe conditions along pipelines, such that review of data can identify interferences

11

3.2.3

Soil and Environmental Conditions

Table 3 Soil and Environmental Data to be Collected

Factor
Soil Types

Terrain/Topography
Drainage
Land Usage

Frozen Ground

Relevance
No known correlation to high pH
SCC; Some correlations found for
near neutral pH SCC; Adverse
soils may degrade coatings
Difficult to have effective CP in
rocky terrain
Poor drainage suggests the
accumulation of water, which can
result in external corrosion
Population densities help define
HCAs. It may be necessary to cut
holes through pavement to
complete CIPSs
Usually not a factor in lower
latitudes

Use and Interpretation

Ranking
B

A
A
A

Be sure to check whether the soil types are fairly uniform, or if there are significant
differences, which would require separate ECDA regions. Steep and rocky terrain may make
it more difficult to survey sections of pipe. Ensure the half-cells have proper contact with
the soil, such that valid measurements can be taken. The rocky soil can shield (geological
shield) and reduce the effectiveness of cathodic protection systems, and may necessitate
additional CP. Poor drainage results in the accumulation of water, and may increase the
likelihood for external corrosion particularly if the water can get underneath the external
coating. If a pipeline is under farmland, it may be necessary to schedule indirect inspections
after harvest. If a pipeline is covered by pavement, it may be necessary to drill holes through
the pavement so accurate potential measurements can be taken. Frozen ground will
influence current flow and may affect the results from survey instruments, and possibly
require the establishment of a separate ECDA Region. (See Section 3.5.)

12

3.2.4

Corrosion Protection Data

Table 4 Corrosion Protection Related Data to be Collected

Factor
Type of CP System
Impressed Current with
Rectifiers, vs. Sacrificial
Anodes
Source of Stray Currents
Overhead lines or DC
power lines
Results from previous
surveys

Maintenance records
associated with CP
systems
Proximity to adjacent
piping; Bonding

Relevance
It may not be possible to
interrupt CP of sacrificial
anode systems, thereby
requiring alternate survey
techniques
AC or DC Interference,
which must be eliminated
or factored into analysis
Trend analysis, and
determine whether
previously identified areas
have been properly
repaired
Can help determine if
there are/have been
extended periods when CP
was not sufficient
Identifying other possible
CP systems, which need to
be part of the surveys

Time/Years without CP

Type of External Coating

Historical condition of
coating (based on previous
direct examinations)
Current demands for CP
Systems
Leak Surveys
Pipeline Patrols

General corrosion and

SCC requires coating
faults
Deteriorating coating
suggests additional
holidays and potentially
new corrosion sites
Increasing demands,
suggest coating failures
and possible active
corrosion
Flame ionization to
demonstrate pipeline
integrity
To identify possible Third
Party activities, which
could damage pipelines

Use and Interpretation

Ranking
A

A
A

A
Corrosion can be active at
locations having coating
holidays if CP is not
operating
Important background
information

B
A

Annual Surveys show well

managed programs

Biweekly surveys show

well managed programs

13

The present and historical status of the cathodic protection system needs to be determined. Has
the CP system been functional since start-up, or have there been extended periods of time when
the exterior surface of the pipeline was allowed to corrode? Such corrosion would help degrade
pipeline integrity. Are there overhead electric power transmission lines, which could induce
alternating currents? If CP systems have been maintained with proper outputs, the comparative
risks to pipeline integrity are reduced. If there are adjacent ferrous metal pipelines, the
condition of the coatings and the cathodic protection systems of each structure should be
reviewed, such that both systems can be properly protected. The rectifiers may have to be
interrupted simultaneously in order to properly measure CP potentials. Any information
associated with the condition of external coatings or tape wraps will be useful when assessing
possible external corrosion. Older coatings are more likely to fail than new ones. On the other
hand, some coatings, such as coal tar enamels, may still be in excellent condition, even after
decades of service, if they were installed on properly prepared services. Corrosion engineers
will look at current demands over time as one measure of the effectiveness of external coatings.
Records from historical digs, i.e., previous excavations of this or an adjacent pipeline, which
allowed visual observation of the pipeline, will be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of
external corrosion control measures. Periodic leak surveys will document that the integrity has
been maintained. Periodic pipeline patrols will document third party activities along the
pipeline, which could potentially impact pipeline integrity.

3.2.5

Operational and Maintenance Parameters and History

Information should be gathered to document both the normal and the most severe conditions the
pipeline may have experienced. The stress levels need to be determined, based on the pipeline
material, grade, design information, and operating conditions. If the pipe segment is near a
compressor or pump station, the effect from vibrations may be considerations particularly for
pre 1970 ERW pipe. Pipeline monitoring records should be reviewed for basic data related to
the status of CP systems over time. If test stations include external coupons, these can provide
a measure of external corrosion rates. If the pipeline was ever modified for tie-ins or rerouting,
such as to go around a new construction site, there may be records to show the condition of
both the exterior and interior surface of the piping. This documents both external and internal
corrosion up to the time of the modifications. By reviewing records of previous excavation, inline-inspection, or above ground survey, it is possible to learn of any previous locations of
corrosion. These should be checked in the follow up inspections. It might also be possible to
learn of any shortcomings associated with any particular inspection/survey tool. Historically,
there have not been major concerns related to microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC).
This may be due in part to not being aware of this threat to pipeline integrity.

14

Table 5 Operations and Maintenance Related Data to be Collected

Factor
Product Transported
Quantity (Volume)
Operating Stress Levels
Location of
Compressors/pumps
MAOP
Temperature

Monitoring Rectifier
Outputs
Measurements at Test
Stations
External Corrosion
Coupons or Electronic
probes
Previous Pipeline Surveys

Pipeline Modifications,
including sleeves, repairs,
and replacement of section
Previous excavations and
Direct Examinations
Results from previous ILI,
hydrostatic pressure tests
Analysis of Corrosion
Products on exterior of
pipeline (including MIC)

Relevance
Natural gas, which should
normally be dry.
Used in flow modeling for ICDA
(Determining critical angles)
Higher operating stresses suggests
shorter intervals between integrity
assessments
Not critical for ECDA; can be
critical for SCCDA
Critical to operations
Should be near ambient;
Significant drops may suggest
condensation of water and internal
corrosion; Elevated temperatures
support SCC
Monthly checks will detect
failures, such that repairs can be
made to fix rectifiers and
minimize
Supplements surveys -identify offspec potentials
A useful tool for assessing relative
corrosivity of bare or protected
base metal
Historical trend analysis; Also
knowing location where previous
corrosion occurred, suggests
where it may occur again
History of leaks and repairs
suggests previous external
corrosion; Pipelines rerouted to
facilitate new development should
not be indicative of corrosion
Higher probability of detecting
new corrosion at locations, where
it occurred previously
Higher probability of detecting
new corrosion at locations, where
it occurred previously
Part of root cause analysis

Use and Interpretation

Ranking
A

Line Pressure used in

stress calculations and %
SMYS calculations

C
A
C
A
B

A
B
A

A
A
B

Often, data records may be incomplete. It may be beneficial to interview field/office

personnel or retirees, who have the most direct experience on pipelines. They may be able
to expedite the search for relevant files or recall operational events.

15

Pipeline System Information

Threats to Pipeline Integrity

Consequences of Failures

Integrate Data and Risk

Assessment

Establish Priorities for

Assessments

Prepare Survey/Inspection
Program

Select Inspection Tools

Estimate External Corrosion Rate

Select most appropriate tools

for inspecting pipeline
anomalies for baseline and
subsequent inspections
Select hydrostatic pressure
test, in-line pigs or indirect
inspections (per ECDA).

Collect data that will be used

when estimating external
corrosion rates (e.g., soil
types). Helps define maximum
time interval between integrity
assessments. See Section 6.1.1

Prepare a work schedule (plan)

to ensure the integrity of all the
operators pipelines will be
verified within the mandated
timeline.

Figure 4 Pre-Assessment Step Overview

16

Sources of Information Used in the Pre-Assessment

Pipeline Related Data Basic design records and pipeline drawings are to include
materials, nominal diameter and wall thickness, material strength, and design
pressures.
Construction Related Data Records of construction of pipelines are to include
information related to coating material, surface preparation, application and inspection
for line pipe and at girth welds. There should also be information related to the
original (and any subsequent) hydrostatic pressure tests, bedding and backfill, and
depth of cover. Information related to the location of test stations, rectifiers, valves,
clamps, isolation points, and other tie-ins to pipelines should be available on the plan
or profile drawings. Also be certain to identify all features, including bonds between
adjacent pipelines and equipment used to control stray current.
Soil and Environmental Data There should be some information available
regarding soil types, terrain, drainage, and the land usage. Typically, states will
publish maps, which illustrate soil types throughout the state. Field personnel will
typically be familiar with the terrain and drainage along each pipeline segment. Land
usage can be identified from aerial photographs and physical inspections.
Corrosion Protection Data The person responsible for implementing the corrosion
control programs should either have possession of the data related to those programs,
or know where records are retained. Records related to the weekly, monthly, or
annual checks of the rectifiers, potentials, leak surveys, pipeline patrols, and
maintenance activities are often retained by field personnel, but should be readily
available. As appropriate, retired workers or long-term consultants may provide
historical insight and provide additional background information.
Note for U.S. Pipeline Professionals when Defining HCAs - When initially
identifying the locations for each High Consequence Area (HCA), aerial maps of the
pipeline corridors should be obtained. Overlay the position of the pipeline on the
map, whether using Method 1 or 2 in defining the HCAs. Maps, which are a couple of
years old, are typically less expensive than new aerial maps, and may be used.
However, even if new maps are used, the pipeline alignment will need to be visually
inspected to determine if there are any changes in site conditions sites or new
buildings, which could change the boundaries of the HCAs.

17

3.3

Feasibility of ECDA Process

The primary goal of the U.S. DOT IMP rule is to maintain the integrity of gas
transmission pipelines. The IMP rule has provided for three recognized
methodologies to assess the integrity of on-shore buried steel pipelines from
possible external corrosion. These are (a) in-line inspections, (b) hydrostatic
pressure tests, and (c) ECDA. This manual focuses on the ECDA process.
Overviews of in-line inspections and hydrostatic pressure testing methodologies
have been included as Attachments A and B.
When reviewing a gas transmission pipeline or system, the pipeline operator
should look at the feasibility of each methodology and determine what is best for
that particular system. The cost/expense for each approach should be a major
consideration.
For example, in-line inspections might be an ideal method for
assessing pipelines, which have existing launchers and receivers.
However, there could be substantial expense associated with the
modification of piping in order to accommodate in-line inspection
vehicles. (These modifications would include the installation of
temporary or permanent launchers and receivers, the replacement
of tight bends with more gradual bends, possible replacement of
valves, and any other modifications to the pipeline necessary to
ensure that the inspection vehicles can pass.)
Hydrostatic pressure tests can also be used to demonstrate pipeline
integrity. However, this may not always be feasible, as there may
be concerns related to interruption in service for gas consumers.
There may also be problems in completely removing the water
used in hydrostatic pressure testing, and this is a concern because
any remaining water could result in internal corrosion, which
would also compromise pipeline integrity. (Pigging and chemical
treatments, such as the addition of methanol, can be used to dry
the interior of the pipelines and arrest internal corrosion.).
The ECDA methodology is a good approach for assessing the
integrity of a pipeline (from the perspective of external corrosion).
However, it might not be a practical approach if there is
insufficient data available to conduct a comprehensive review of
the pipeline or system. The quality of data from indirect
inspections, which will be discussed in Section 4, must also be
considered. If the pipeline is encased within larger diameter
piping, such as for additional protection at road crossings, it might
not be possible in certain cases to collect indirect inspection
results. Likewise, the presence of buried metallic structures or

18

adverse soil conditions could preclude the collection of valid

indirect inspection data. If that is the case, it may be necessary to
review the assessment methodologies. Likewise, if results from
the indirect inspections yield an inordinate number of indications,
which must be investigated, it may be more cost-effective to
review the assessment methodologies and select a more cost
effective approach to assessing pipeline integrity.
The goal of the ASME B31.8S and the U.S. IMP Rule is to ensure pipeline
integrity and public safety. However, the choice of methodology is left to the
pipeline operator. The operators can change the methodologies employed to
demonstrate pipeline integrity, as needed, and on a case-by-case basis.
Pipeline operators may use in-line inspections, hydrostatic pressure testing, or the
ECDA process when assessing pipeline integrity from the perspective of possible
external corrosion. If necessary, pipeline operators may change methodologies
provided that pipeline integrity assessments are still completed.

3.4

Selecting the Indirect Inspection Tool

There are a number of indirect inspection tools available for assessing buried
pipelines and determining whether there are holidays in the external coatings.
Techniques include (a) Close Interval Potential Surveys (CIPS), (b) DirectCurrent Voltage Gradient (DCVG), (c) AC Current Attenuation Surveys, (d)
Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG), and (e) Soil Resistivity /
Conductivity Surveys. There are also numerous variations for how to conduct
and assess or interpret the results from such surveys. Section 4 of this Practical
Guidelines publication presents discussions on the major indirect inspection
techniques, noting the strengths and limitations of each. Table 6 is a reproduction
of Table 2 from NACE RP-0502-2002, and presents guidelines for selecting the
proper tool when conducting an external corrosion direct assessment.
Note numbers 1-3 within Table 6 and described in the footnote below the table.
Numbers 1 and 2 indicate the tool can be used for conducting indirect inspections
when the described conditions exist. Number 1 is associated with small coating
holidays, i.e., < 1 in2, while number 2 is associated with large coating holidays
that cause fluctuations in the CP potentials under normal operating conditions.
Number 3 indicates the tool should generally not be used. As an example, CIPS
and ACVG or DCVG can be used when surveying a section of pipe buried in a
right-of-way having overhead high voltage electric transmission lines. However,
ACCA surveys would generally yield unacceptable results when used under these
conditions. As a second example, CIPS and ACCA may be used near river or
water crossings. However, DCVG and/or ACVG would generally not provide
favorable results for those conditions.

19

Note that the tool choices within Table 6 are only guidelines. There may be
refinements in the tools or the operating procedures, which change or expand the
applicability of the individual tools. It is the responsibility of the pipeline
professionals and the companies providing the indirect inspection surveys to
identify the specific conditions in the field, select appropriate tools and inspection
procedures, and ensure that valid data is collected before completing fieldwork.
Table 6 Guidelines for Selecting Indirect Inspection Techniques
(From NACE RP-0502-2002 Table 2)
CONDITIONS

Close Interval
Surveys
(CIPS)

Pearson

Electromagnetic

AC Current
Attenuation
Surveys

2
2

Current Voltage
Gradient
Surveys (ACVG
and DCVG)
1, 2
3

Coating Holidays
Anodic Zones on Bare
Pipe
Near River or Water
Crossings
Under Frozen Ground
Stray Currents
Shielded
Corrosion
Activity
Adjacent
Metallic
Structures
Near Parallel Pipelines
Under High Voltage
Alternating
Current
(HVAC)
Overhead
Electric Transmission
Lines
Shorted Casings
Under Paved Roads
Uncased Crossings
Cased Piping
At
Deep
Burial
Locations
Wetlands (limited)
Rocky Terrain / Rock
Ledges / Rock Backfill

2
3

2
3

1, 2
3

3
2
3

3
1, 2
3

3
2
3

2
2
3

1, 2
1, 2
3

1, 2

1, 2

2
2

1, 2
1, 2

3
2

2
3

1, 2
3

2
3
2
3
2

2
3
1, 2
3
2

2
3
2
3
2

2
2
2
3
2

2
1, 2
1, 2
3
2

2
3

1, 2
3

2
3

2
2

1, 2
2

1 = Applicable: Small coating holidays (isolated and typically less than 600 mm2 (1 in2) and conditions that do not
cause fluctuations in CP potentials under normal operating conditions
2 = Applicable: Large coating holidays (isolated and continuous) or conditions that cause fluctuations in CP
potentials under normal conditions
3 = Not Applicable: Not applicable to this tool or not applicable to this tool without additional considerations

NACE RP-0502 and the U.S. IMP rule recognize that indirect inspection
technology will change in the future, as new and improved instrumentation and
techniques are developed. (For example, it may become easier or more practical
to assess sections of cased piping at road crossings).

20

Note for U.S. Pipeline Professionals: When new technology is to be

deployed for the first time, the pipeline operator is required to notify the
U.S. DOT/OPS at least 180 days prior to deployment.
The service company that developed the new or improved technology
should provide the proper documentation to demonstrate the validity of the
new approach.
3.5

Selecting /Defining ECDA Regions

As part of the Pre-Assessment step of the ECDA process, pipeline operators
should have collected data relevant to each pipeline. The type of data used to
define ECDA regions includes:

Pipeline and materials data

Construction data
Soils and environmental data
Corrosion control data
Operations and maintenance data

Per NACE RP-0502-2002, an ECDA region is a portion of a pipeline or a

segment that has similar physical characteristics, corrosion histories, and similar
conditions for future corrosion. Thus, different segments of a pipeline, which are
in different soil conditions, may be assigned to different ECDA regions, as soil
conditions relate to drainage of water and soil resistivity, both of which affect
external corrosion. The regions may also be assigned, based on induced AC from
high voltage electric transmission lines overhead. Different ECDA regions may
also be assigned to segments of the pipelines, depending upon the relative
performance of the cathodic protection systems.
A second portion of the establishment of ECDA regions is the selection of tools.
Section 3.4 above presents general guidelines for selection of tools, based on
NACE RP-0502-2002. Section 4 provides a more lengthy discussion of the
strengths of individual tools and indirect inspection methodologies. Indirect
inspection tools selected should be able to provide comprehensive analysis
throughout the entire ECDA region. Consider, for example, a pipeline, which
crosses a highway. If a portion of that piping is cased, i.e., the piping is within a
larger diameter pipe, it may be appropriate to assign separate ECDA regions for
that portion of the piping, which is cased piping, and the portions of the piping,
which is not cased. Note that in this example, the two segments of piping outside
of the casing can be assigned to the same ECDA region. All portions of the same
ECDA region do not have to be contiguous.
It is the responsibility of the pipeline operator to establish the boundaries for each
of the ECDA regions, and each pipeline segment should be assigned to an ECDA
region.

21

Figure 5 ECDA Regions along a Pipeline

NACE RP 0502-2002 provides guidelines within Section 5.10 regarding the
number of required direct examinations. In Section 5.10.1 of that document, it
states that In the event that no indications are identified in a pipeline segment, a
minimum of one direct examination is required in the ECDA region identified as
most likely for external corrosion in the Pre-Assessment Step (Two direct
examinations for the initial application of the ECDA process). Thus, if a pipeline
had multiple ECDA regions, the direct examination(s) would only be required in
the particular region identified as the most likely to have external corrosion.
However, the text associated with Section 5.10.2.3.1 of NACE RP 0502-2002,
which address indications in the Monitored category, has text, that some have
taken to require direct examinations for each ECDA region: If an ECDA region
contains monitored indications but the ECDA region did not contain any
immediate or scheduled indications, one excavation is required in the ECDA
region at the most severe indication (Two direct examinations for the initial
application of the ECDA process). Note that the above interpretation is
inconsistent with Section 5.10.2.3.2, which requires only one direct examination
(two for the first time the ECDA process is applied) in the ECDA region
identified as the most likely for external corrosion for a pipeline having multiple
ECDA regions and no immediate nor scheduled indications.
New committees will be meeting at NACE CORROSION/2005 and will be
reviewing the text within the original NACE RP 0502-2002. The committees are
expected to make changes to clarify the requirements and minimize any
ambiguity from the original text.

22

Until the clarifications are finalized, it is best for pipeline operators to minimize
the number of different regions. If the conditions along the pipelines are
different, then different ECDA regions should be assigned. However, if the
conditions are essentially identical, the two sections should constitute one ECDA
region not two regions.
Consider again a section of pipe, which passes under a highway in a casing. The
cased section should constitute one ECDA region, and the piping on either side
should constitute the second ECDA region not the second and third ECDA
regions.
3.6

Risk Assessment/Prioritization by Spreadsheet or Commercial Programs

This section applies exclusively to U.S. pipeline companies, who must comply
with 49 CFR Part 192.
When establishing an Integrity Management Program for U.S. pipeline
companies, one of the first action items is to review the pipeline systems, and to
establish a prioritization for assessing the integrity of the affected pipelines. This
prioritization can then be used for scheduling the initial integrity assessments of
the individual pipelines, such that the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192.921 (d)
are met. 50% of the covered segments must be assessed by December 17, 2007,
and the remaining 50% must be completed by December 17, 2012.
Baseline surveys would follow the prioritization, and the integrity assessments
would follow a schedule established to comply with the rule.
The same type of spreadsheets or commercial software programs, which are used
to conduct relative risk assessments, may also be used to establish prioritizations
for indirect inspections and later, direct examination of a pipeline.
The database of pipeline system information consists of five classes of
information related to the likelihood of external corrosion:

Pipeline and materials data

Construction data
Soils and environmental data
Corrosion control data
Operations and maintenance data

The type of data for the above data classes has been presented in Sections 3.2.1
through 3.2.5, and the tables within each of those sections present the relevance of
the data, how the data is used or interpreted, and a ranking, which indicates the
relative significance of the individual parameters. The spreadsheet program or

23

relative risk ranking software assigns a weighting to each data point, which is
used in the calculations.
The second set of data used in the relative risk/prioritization calculations relates to
the consequences of a corrosion event, i.e., a pipeline failure. The potential loss
of all gas within the section of pipe could be one measure of the consequences.
However, the consequences could be extended to include economic consequences
resulting from a pipeline failure.
By multiplying the score (sum) of points for the likelihood of external corrosion
with the score for the consequences from a failure, a relative score can be
developed for each ECDA region.
If the pipeline is segmented into multiple sections, based on pipeline features, it
will be possible to assign relative priorities for different sections along the
pipeline. For example, higher points are assigned to those portions of the
pipeline, which are cased. Higher points can also be assigned to those sections,
where there has been prior coating damage or the cathodic protection systems
have failed. These sections would receive higher scores when the relative risk
ranking and prioritization calculations are conducted.
Relative Risk Assessments can be use to Prioritize inspections, direct examinations, and
remediation of pipelines. Although commercial programs are available, site-specific
spreadsheet programs can be used to provide the same type of guidance (prioritization)
for managing pipeline integrity.
4.0

Indirect Inspections
Above grade surveys or inspections are often the least expensive part of the ECDA process,
and yet provide the data necessary for locating holidays in the external coating of pipelines.
The survey results are used to select sites for excavation and direct examination of the
pipeline. Two indirect inspection techniques are required for each ECDA region.
4.1

Close Interval Potential Surveys

A Close Interval Potential Survey (CIPS) is an indirect inspection methodology
for measuring the potential between a buried pipeline and the earth at regular
intervals along the pipeline. CIPS can be used to assess the performance of the
cathodic protection systems, and to determine the locations of flaws in the
pipeline coatings, thereby identifying locations of potential external corrosion
activity.
The CIPS surveys consist of a series of pipe-to-soil potential measurements along
the pipeline right-of-way. There are two mechanisms for triggering the automated
measurements of the pipe-to-soil potentials. One approach is based on measuring

24

distance along the pipeline and taking the pipe-to-soil potentials at regular
intervals, such as 2.5 or 3 feet, i.e., distance based measurements. The second
approach is to take a specified number of pipe-to-soil measurements throughout a
specified time interval, i.e., time based measurements. Crews may use either
method for triggering the CIPS measurements during the surveys, since in both
cases the measurement interval must be converted to down line distance.
Typically, survey crews will first determine the precise location of the pipeline,
and positional markers (flags) will be inserted into the earth at 100-foot intervals
(or shorter distances if there are any turns or bends along the pipeline). The crew
will then traverse the pipeline, and measure the pipe-to-soil potentials on earthen
cover, directly above the pipeline. Using either a distance based or time based
CIPS instrument, potential measurements are collected at approximately 2.5-3
foot intervals. By virtue of typical depths of burial (3-4 feet), the potential
measurements represent essentially continuous readings.
When the earth directly above the pipeline is covered by concrete or asphalt, it
will typically be more difficult and expensive to take readings every 2.5 feet.
Instead, it may be more practical to record readings every 10 feet. This requires a
hole to be drilled through the concrete or asphalt, so that a reference electrode can
be inserted and contact native earth. Fill the holes with water, before taking the
readings.
4.1.1

Reference Electrodes
The industry standard copper-copper sulfate electrodes with ceramic plugs
are used for measuring potentials. The cells should be kept out of the heat,
and the windows should be covered, so as to prevent photoelectric effects,
which can degrade the cells and affect the potential measurements. The
cells should periodically be cleaned and calibrated, such that they provide
an accuracy of 5 mV. As a minimum, the cells should be calibrated at
the start of each day when surveys are conducted. (See NACE TM0497
Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on
Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems.)
Figure 6 illustrates a pair of copper-copper sulfate electrodes strapped to
walking poles. As the survey crew traverses the pipeline right-of-way,
one electrode is always kept in contact with the soil, and potential
measurements are recorded at 2.5-foot intervals. Potential measurements
are recorded with an alphanumeric data logger/field computer (Section
4.1.2), along with distance readings from a chaining device (Section
4.1.3).

25

Figure 6 Cu-CuSO4 Electrodes Strapped to Walking Poles

4.1.2

Field Computers and High Impedance Voltmeters

The potentials are measured and stored, using hand-held field computers
(alpha numeric data loggers), which include a high impedance (100 megohm) voltmeter. Such systems enable pipe-to-soil potentials to be
measured and recorded. When surveying, notes should be entered into the
data stream to identify permanent, above ground features, such as road or
river crossings, overhead AC transmission lines, pipeline markers, etc.
These serve as reference points when the data is reviewed. It is
recommended that the field computers also have the capability to collect
sub-meter GPS readings, and to embed the GPS data within the CIPS data
stream. Figure 7 illustrates the instrumentation.

Figure 7 Field Computer and Voltmeter for CIPS

One Style Field Computer and High Impedance Voltmeter for CIPS Surveys
26

4.1.3

Distance Measurements Along the Pipeline

Electronic measuring devices are used to trigger pipe-to-soil potential
measurements. A hip-chainer is a device, which is used to spool out
survey wire while the crew traverses the pipeline. Measurements are
automatically made and recorded, as each 2.5 feet of wire is unspooled.
Figure 8 illustrates the device.

Figure 8 Hip Chainer to Accurately Measure Distance Along a Pipeline

4.1.4

Current Interrupters
Impressed cathodic protection systems function by applying a current to a
pipeline. The effectiveness of the impressed current CP systems can be
quantified by measuring an IR free, polarized potential, which requires a
brief interruption of the applied cathodic protection currents. The current
is interrupted by the use of current interrupters, and all significant sources
of current to the pipeline must be interrupted simultaneously. Since the
CP systems need to be On in order to protect the pipelines, the current
interruptions are kept very brief. A Duty Cycle is the ratio of time for
the applied CP current On to the time the current is interrupted, i.e.,
Off. Typical duty cycles are either three or four times On to one time
Off. Such duty cycles allow for the measurement of the polarized
potentials, while minimizing depolarization.

27

Quartz and GPS Interrupters

Different types of current interrupters are available. One type is the
quartz-controlled interrupter, while another type is the GPS interrupter.
Quartz controlled interrupters have a tendency to drift with time. Thus, if
quartz interrupters are being used, one of the units should be termed the
master, and all the associated quartz interrupters should be synchronized
to that unit. This enables all currents to be interrupted simultaneously
when making the measurements.
In contrast, GPS interrupters (Figure 9) are synchronized using time
provided by GPS satellites. This eliminates labor requirements associated
with synchronization required for quartz-controlled interrupters.

Figure 9 GPS Interrupter

Figure 10 Current Interrupters Installed at Location of the Rectifiers

28

Note: Current interrupters, which use mercury switches, must be properly oriented so that the
switches will properly function.

4.1.5

Close Interval Potential Survey Techniques

There are four primary techniques used when conducting close interval
potential surveys. These are

Current On CIPS
Current On/Off Slow Cycle
Current On/Off Fast Cycle
On/Instant Off Wave Form Analysis/Pulse Generator
(WFA/PG)

These can be used to demonstrate:

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)

The effectiveness of the cathodic protection program

Compliance with the cathodic protection criteria
Whether the coating is degraded or has defects
Whether there is AC or DC interference
Whether there is electrical or geologic current shielding
The extent of current attenuation
The presence of foreign contacts
Conditions for localized corrosion

4.1.5.1 Current On CIPS

This technique evaluates the potential associated with applied currents. It
can be used to:

Measure pipe-to-soil On potentials

Can be used for pipelines having sacrificial anodes

Detect areas of interference

Useful when there are dynamic stray currents

Soil IR drops helps in detecting anomalies

Current On CIPS does not account for voltage drops.
Refer to Figure 11 for an example of plotted CIPS data. In this example,
the vertical axis ranges from 300 mV to 2700 mV. The dashed red line
depicts the -850 mV criterion. The horizontal axis depicts axial positions
along the pipeline (pipeline stationing). The dip in the potential line
(highlighted within the oval) suggests an area with possible coating
damage.
29

These results should be compared to results from other survey techniques

to identify the locations of most probable coating damage.

-850 mV

Figure 11 Current On Surveys

4.1.5.2 Current On/Off Surveys (Slow and Fast Cycle CIPS)
The pipeline potentials can be measured using either slow or fast cycle
current interruption. In these techniques, the current is turned On/Off
at a controlled rate so that the On and Off potentials can be
differentiated. Slow cycle typically means the current is applied for a
period lasting a number of seconds, and is then turned Off for a lesser
number of seconds (Example 8 seconds On, 2 seconds Off). Fast
cycle typically means the current is On for a period of milliseconds,
before it is turned Off for a lesser period of milliseconds (Example 800
msec On, 200 msec Off). The relative ratio of On to Off time is
called the duty cycle, and is typically 4:1. The cycling of CP enables the
state of cathodic protection to be studied, while minimizing the affects of
soil IR drop.
The advantages of these techniques are that they:

Detect potential anomalies

Account for voltage drops

Reflect the polarized pipeline potentials

Are useful when prioritizing anomalies for subsequent analysis or

remediation
However, there are difficulties when using these techniques:

All influencing current sources must be interrupted.

The interruptions must be synchronized for all influencing current

sources, and the interruption equipment must be reliable
30

(Section 4.1.6.3 illustrates an approach to verifying that all sources of

current are being interrupted while the measurements are being taken.)

-850 mV

Figure 12 Slow Cycle CIPS (8 Sec On-2 Sec Off)

In Figure 12 the pipe-to-soil potentials are depicted on the vertical axis,
with the 850 mV criterion being illustrated by the dashed red line. The
horizontal axis depicts distance along the pipeline. Refer to the small area
within the circle. The deflections below the 850 mV criterion line may
be indicative of poor contact points. Do not draw conclusions based on
this plot alone. Overlay the results with those for other techniques to
confirm real indications. DCVG and ACVG are typically used to
determine the precise location of coating anomalies.
The following graph in Figure 13 illustrates fast cycle CIPS.
-1.60

Fast Cycle CIS

-1.50

On
-1.30

P/S Potential [V]

-1.40

Off

-1.20

-1.10

-1.00

-0.90

-850 mV
Flag Station

-0.80
110+00

111+00

112+00

113+00

114+00

115+00

116+00

117+00

Figure 13 Fast Cycle CIPS (800ms/200 ms)

31

118+00

119+00

120+00

The vertical axis in the Fast Cycle CIPS depicts the pipeline potentials,
while the horizontal axis depicts the axial position (stationing) along the
pipeline. Both the upper line (On) and the lower line (Off) should
meet or exceed the NACE 850 mV criterion. It may be necessary to
boost the CP currents if the Off potentials do not meet the 850 mV
criterion. A key to interpreting the results is to look for variations, which
indicates something is different or has changed.
Consider next On/Instant Off Potential Surveys. These are depicted
in Figure 14 and Figure 15. Everything to the right side of the graph is
fairly consistent and above the 850 mV criterion. However, notice the
dip for both the On and Off potentials at the left side of Figure 14.
This suggests a possible coating anomaly.

Possible coating
anomaly indicated
by dips in On
and Instant Off
Potentials

Figure 14 Possible Coating Anomaly Seen in an On/Instant Off Potential Survey

32

-850 mV

Figure 15 Instant Off Readings are Below the 850 mV Criterion

No dips to suggest anomalies. CP currents appear to be insufficient to meet 850 mV Criterion
4.1.5.3 Wave Form Analysis/Pulse Generator Potential Survey
A fourth close interval potential survey technique is the waveform
analysis/pulse generator (WFA/PG) survey. In this technique, the current
On potentials and the polarized potentials are recorded. However,
unlike slow and fast cycle surveys, the current is interrupted, using pulse
generators, which do not require synchronization. Thus, it is possible to
study the relative effect each rectifier has on influencing the cathodic
protection of a section of pipeline. This method can also be used to
establish priorities when assessing potential anomalies.
Figure 16 shows the results from WFA/PG measurements along a
pipeline. The data illustrates a dip below the threshold value, which
suggests the location of a possible coating flaw.

33

Figure 16 WFA Potential Survey

An anomaly is indicated where the potentials dip below the 850 mV criterion.
4.1.6

Checking the Validity of the CIPS Data

This section highlights considerations to ensure valid CIPS data has been
collected.

4.1.6.1 Connection to Pipeline at Test Stations Near and Far Ground

In order to measure the potentials along the pipeline, there must be an
electrical connection to the pipeline. These connections are made at the
test stations, which are typically one mile apart. Figure 17 illustrates the
electrical circuit for potential measurements taken at or near the electrical
connection to the pipe (Near Ground), while Figure 18 illustrates the
electrical circuit for potential measurements taken away from the electrical
connection to the pipe (Far Ground).

34

Figure 17 Near Ground Measured with the Current On

The potential is measured when the reference electrode is near the test lead connection to
pipeline.

Figure 18 Far Ground Measured with the Current On

The potential is measured when the reference electrode is away from the test lead connection to
pipeline and near the next adjacent test station.
4.1.6.2 Measuring the IR Drop
The Metallic IR drop is the difference between the pipe-to-soil potentials,
as measured at the near and far grounds as follows:
Metallic IR Drop = Near Ground Far Ground

35

Figure 19 Measuring the Metallic IR Drop

Metallic IR drop should be measured directly, as illustrated above.

If there is a significant difference between directly measured metallic IR drop

and the IR drop calculated from the Near Ground and Far Ground Readings:

There may be additional current sources, which need to be interrupted,

A discontinuity may exist. (Check for the presence of insulating flanges),
The test point/station may be bad. (See Figure 20 for an example),
The test point/station might be connected to another pipeline.

A Jump in Measured
Potentials along length
of Pipeline could be
due to a broken wire

-850 mV

Figure 20 Discontinuous Readings Could Indicate Broken Wire

36

4.1.6.3 Determining Whether All Influencing Current Sources Have Been

Interrupted
As appropriate, it may be necessary to install interrupters in additional CP
system rectifiers, and then repeat the surveys to ensure valid data has been
collected. Figure 21 depicts a pipeline where some influencing current
sources remain, while Figure 22 illustrates results when all influencing
currents have been properly interrupted:

Figure 21 Not all Influencing Currents have been Interrupted

-850 mV

Figure 22 All Influencing Current Sources have Been Interrupted

(Note that potentials are above the 850 mV Criterion)

37

4.2

Soil Resistivity and Continuous Ground Conductivity Surveys

Corrosion is an electrochemical process, and by knowing the characteristics of the
soil, cathodic protection systems can be designed to provide the necessary current
to arrest corrosion. One way to characterize the soil is through measurements of
soil resistivity. Another approach is through continuous ground conductivity
surveys.
One measure for the corrosiveness of soil is its resistivity. Electrical resistivity is
the mathematical inverse of electrical conductivity. Thus, the lower the
resistivity, the higher the conductivity and corrosiveness of the soil. Soil
resistivity is a function of the salinity, clay content, and moisture within the soil.
Typically the soil resistivity is measured at discreet points along the pipeline,
using the Wenner 4 Pin methodology, as described in Section 4.2.1.
The second method for assessing the corrosiveness of soil is through a continuous
ground conductivity survey. These surveys are non-invasive, above ground,
electronic surveys, which measure the ability of soil to conduct electrical currents.
These surveys have an advantage over the Wenner 4 Pin method in so far as data
is electronically collected and recorded continuously, rather than at a series of
discrete points. However, they require the use of specialized equipment, which
can measure and record the horizontal and vertical dipoles from an induced
magnetic field. This is further discussed in Section 4.2.2.
There are no internationally recognized standards for interpreting the significance
of soil resistivity measurements. However, the following table provides a general
guide for interpreting the relationship between soil resistivity and corrosiveness.
Table 7 Resistivity and Corrosivity Classifications
Resistivity (Ohm-Cm)
Less than 2,000
2,000 to 5,000
5,000 to 10,000
Greater than 10,000

Corrosivity Classification
Very Corrosive
Corrosive
Moderately Corrosive
Less Corrosive

Note that there can be significant corrosion in high resistivity soils,

particularly where the soil compositions are not uniform.
Variations in soil resistivity indicate variations in composition of the soil,
which could create galvanic corrosion cells.
It may be appropriate to consider establishing separate ECDA regions
when there are significant changes in the soil characteristics.

Typically, pipeline operators will conduct either the Wenner 4 Pin or the
continuous ground conductivity surveys for characterizing the corrosivity of the
38

soil along a pipeline. However, occasionally the results are collected by both
methods and compared. Section 4.2.3 presents one such comparison of results.
Although the continuous surveys have an advantage in collecting and presenting
more data, similar trends are seen for both methods
4.2.1

Soil Resistivity Surveys Wenner 4 Pin Method

The first method for evaluating the corrosiveness of soils is to measure the
resistivity. The Wenner 4 Pin method is used to make these measurements
in the field, using ASTM G57 procedures.
Measurements are often collected at 100 or 1000 foot intervals along a
pipeline, and the results presented in parallel with other indirect inspection
measurements for corresponding locations.
The methodology calls for four pins to be pushed into the ground, all in a
straight line. Each of the pins should be pushed several inches into the
soil, with the pins spaced equidistance from each other. The measurement
reflects the average soil resistivity from grade to a depth equal to the pin
spacing. By using Barnes layer calculations, the resistivity of the soil at
pipe depth can be calculated. For example, if the pipe was in a layer of
soil from 5 to 10 feet below grade, soil measured from 0 to 5 feet and from
0 to 10 feet can be used to calculate the resistivity of the soil from 5 to 10
feet. Figure 23 illustrates the set-up of the pins.

Figure 23 Four Pin Wenner Method for Measuring Soil Resistivity

Figure 24 illustrates the connections to a soil resistivity meter.

39

Figure 24 Electronic Instrumentation Used in Four Pin Soil Resistivity Measurements

Follow the directions from the manufacturer of the instrument, and adjust
scales as necessary until the proper reading is obtained. Note start with
the least sensitive range, and adjust to more sensitive ranges, as necessary.
Use the following formula to calculate resistivity:
Resistivity = (Vernier Reading)*Range*(Pin Spacing)*(191.51)
Where the Vernier Reading and Range is from the instrument,
4 Pin Spacing is in feet, and
191.51 is a constant a factor to convert readings to ohm-cm
Soil resistivity is generally reported to no more than three significant
digits. Thus, readings would be rounded to the nearest three significant
digit number. (Example: 11,492 ohm-cm would be rounded to 11,500
ohm-cm).
4.2.2

Continuous Ground Conductivity Instrumentation

The continuous ground conductivity instruments have the following
components:
(1)
(2)
(3)

Transmitter coil
Receiver coil
Control unit and data logger

The transmitter coil transmits the primary magnetic field into the soil,
while the receiver coil measures the induced secondary magnetic field.
40

One channel measures the horizontal dipole, while the other channel
measures the vertical dipole. The instruments typically survey to depths
of 1.5 meters, or approximately 5 feet, and approximately 3000 data points
can be collected per hour.
Personnel, who measure the conductivity of soils, should be aware of the
sensitive nature of the instrumentation. Soil conductivity measurements
should not be recorded either above or near underground metallic
structures, because buried metallic structures will conduct electrical flow
and increase the observed conductivities.
The ground conductivity meters are to be calibrated per the manufacturers
instructions. There should be no metallic structures in the immediate
vicinity of the instrument, when being calibrated. It may also be necessary
to remove steel-toed shoes, watches, and jewelry when making the
measurements.
Once calibrated, survey personnel traverse the pipeline at a uniform speed
(such as a slow walk), while the data is being collected automatically at
regular intervals. The position of pipeline markers and pipeline features
must be recorded on the data logs to make it possible to match results from
the conductivity/resistivity surveys with data from other indirect
inspection methodologies, using the axial position as the common
denominator.
The data logger records the conductivity readings in units of millisiemens/meter (mSm). These readings can be converted to resistivity
readings in ohm-cm by the following equation:
Resistivity (ohm-cm) = [1/Conductivity (milli-siemens/meter)]*100

4.2.3

Special Comparison of Wenner 4 Pin and Continuous Conductivity

In general, pipeline operators who are measuring the corrosivity of the soil
along pipelines will use either the Wenner 4 Pin method or undertake a
continuous conductivity survey. Figure 25 presents results from a test in
which data was collected using both methods, and the results aligned
axially, based on pipeline stationing.

41

1,000,000
100,000

4pin5ft

4pin10ft

Resistivity [ohm cm]

geonics 5 ft

1,000

10,000

geonics 1.5 ft

100

Distance [ft]
100+00

110+00

120+00

130+00

140+00

150+00

160+00

170+00

180+00

190+00

200+00

Figure 25 Test - Comparing Wenner 4 Pin and Continuous Conductivity Surveys

It is obvious from the figure above that many more data points are available from
the continuous conductivity surveys, compared to the series of measurements,
using the Wenner 4 Pin method. There is not a 1:1 match between the high and
low points for the two series of measurements. However, the small shift can be
attributed to having a much smaller number of field data points, i.e.,
measurements using the Wenner 4 Pin method. The two sets of results also have
the same order of magnitude, although the specific numbers vary. Soil resistivity
results are not used alone, but instead are interpreted along with other indirect
inspection techniques. Results from either the Wenner 4 Pin or continuous
conductivity surveys are used to provide one measure of the conditions along a
pipeline. The coincidence of indications from multiple (minimum of two)
techniques serve as the trigger for further investigations into possible coating
damage and a determination of whether external corrosion may be present.
4.3

Direct Current Voltage Gradient Surveys

Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) is an indirect inspection technique,
which can be used to determine the locations of defects in the protective coating
system. This method uses pulsed direct current (DC), which is from either the
impressed current cathodic protection system, or from a temporary system. The
current is pulsed, using a current interrupter.
Electrical current flows from the pipe, through the soil, at the location of coating
defects. Potentials are measured, using two reference-cell probes (Cu-CuSO4),
42

which are in contact with the soil directly above and perpendicular to the pipeline.
Potentials are measured, using a sensitive, zero-centered voltmeter, with the
polarity noted.
Voltage gradients are a measure of the rate of change in potential with distance
from the anomaly. A pipeline surveyor traverses the pipeline, making
measurements with each stride when both probes are in contact with the ground.
Normally, there should not be a potential difference between the probes.
However, there will be a potential difference at locations having pipeline
anomalies. Through a series of measurements, the precise location of each
coating anomaly is pin-pointed by finding the epicenter of the voltage gradient.
Figure 26 displays results, which are typical of DCVG measurements. The
location of anomalies is marked along the horizontal axis, which is the distance
along the pipeline. The vertical axis is used to mark the relative size of each
anomaly, and results are reported as a percent of the IR in Categories 1 through 4,
(See Section 4.3.1.)
100
DCVG

50

% IR

Category 4

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1
0
0+00

5+00

Station [ft]
15+00

10+00

30" Gas Pipeline

HCA-4

20+00

Percent IR for
Anomaly

25+00

30+00

DCVG
Survey

Figure 26 Typical Results from DCVG Survey of Gas Transmission Pipeline

4.3.1

Severity of Coating Holidays

The severity of an anomaly (defect) can be estimated by comparing the
voltage drop in the soil to the applied potential shift. The severity is
assigned per the following ranges:

43

Table 8 Severity of Coating Holidays

Category
1

Range
1-15% IR

16-35% IR

36-60% IR

61-100% IR

Description
Coating holidays in this category are considered to be of low importance,
and repair is not required. A properly maintained CP system will provide
effective, long-term protection
Coating holidays in this category may need to be repaired, if they are in
close proximity to groundbeds or other structures. A properly maintained
CP system can protect these holidays. The holidays should be monitored,
and coating repairs may be necessary if the coating degrades or the level
of cathodic protection fluctuates.
Coating holidays in this category are generally worthy of repair, as the
amount of exposed steel is sufficient as to be a major drain on the cathodic
protection current. Coating repairs should be scheduled, based on
proximity to groundbeds and other structures of importance. Coating
holidays are not evidence of external corrosion on a pipeline. There is
generally not a threat to pipeline integrity at the location of coating
holidays as long as adequate cathodic protection is maintained at each of
the coating holidays.
Coating holidays in this category are generally recommended for
immediate investigation and possible repair. The amount of exposed steel
is creating a major drain on the cathodic protection current, and extensive
coating damage may be present. There may be a real threat to the integrity
of the pipeline, if adequate cathodic protection cannot be maintained. The
major current drain may also shorten the effective life of sacrificial anode
cathodic protection systems.

(Section 4.3.4 presents the formulae used for calculating the % IR drops.)
4.3.2

Advantages and Disadvantages of DCVG Surveys

Advantages

Provides an assessment of coating condition

Identifies discrete coating defects

Provides an indication of the severity of defects

Disadvantages

Close proximity to other pipelines or metallic structures may cause

problems

Unlikely to identify disbonded coating

Rate of progress is dependent upon terrain and coating quality

4.3.3

How Surveys are Conducted (Procedures)

(a)

Install current interrupters at existing cathodic protection rectifiers

and any temporary current sources (0.3 sec On and 0.7 sec.
Off or 1 sec On and 3 sec Off)

44

(b)

Adjust the pulsed current, such that a potential swing of 500-600

mV is achieved. (However, potential swings as low as 150-200
mV can be used at times.) By virtue of the current pulsing, the
effect of stray or telluric currents can be minimized.

(c)

The On and Off potentials are measured at the test station

nearest the starting point for the survey, and these potentials are
measured at all other test stations encountered. The voltage
gradient is determined by the difference in the On and Off
readings.

(d)

The survey operator traverses the pipeline, using Cu-CuSO4

reference electrodes as walking sticks. (See Figure 9.) One probe
is kept along and above the centerline for the pipe, while the other
probe is placed 1-2 meters lateral (perpendicular) to the pipeline.
(1)
(2)

(e)

The size of the defect is determined by considering:

(1)
(2)
(3)

(f)

4.3.4

If no defects are observed, the needle on the voltmeter will

not register any movement.
As a defect is approached, there will be a noticeable
fluctuation on the voltmeter, and the fluctuations will
correspond to the rate of the interrupter cycle (step (b)
above). The amplitude will increase, as the centerpoint of
the anomaly is approached. It may be necessary to change
scales on the voltmeter. The defect is located (centered) by
a series of measurements that define the epicenter of the
anomaly.

The signal strength at the defect

The difference between On and Off potentials at
adjacent test points
The distance from the test point

The size of the defect can also be determined by relating the signal
voltage at remote earth (mV1) to the signal voltage recorded at the
nearest test station (mV2)

Field Measurements
When conducting field measurements, the survey operator needs to record
the precise location of the epicenter, such that the center position for each
of the anomalies is identified. These positions should be:

45

4.3.5

Marked as an axial length along the pipeline from a known

reference point, i.e., pipeline stationing
Global positioning coordinates, using sub-meter GPS

Calculating the % IR drop to Determine Severity of Coating Holidays

The grading is based on the following formulae:
% IR = (mV1/mV2)*100%
mV2 is the local IR drop and is calculate by:
mV2 = SSu + (SSu-SSd)*(DL/SL)
SSu = Signal strength measured at upstream test point
SSd = Signal strength at downstream test point
DL = Down line distance from upstream test point of defect
SL = Total distance between test stations

4.3.6

Determining the Direction of Current Flow

DCVG data can also be used to determine the direction of current flow
within the soil. This is based on:

Corrosion, in which current is flowing away from coating faults

Cathodic protection, in which current is flowing to the coating
faults

The direction of current flow is determined by measurements taken while

the CP systems are active, as well as when they are Off.
Table 9 presents a very brief summary of the possible categories for the
state of corrosion at the location of a pipeline coating holiday. (See
NACE RP-0502-2002, Appendix A. Paragraph A 6.4.3 for further
discussions.)

46

Table 9 Direction of Current Flow in a Holiday

Cathodic/Cathodic
(C/C)
Cathodic/Neutral
(C/N)
Cathodic/Anodic
(C/A)

Anodic/Anodic
(A/A)

Holidays in the coating are cathodically protected while the CP systems are
On, and they remain polarized while the CP systems are either interrupted
or Off. Thus, CP current is being consumed, and corrosion is not active.
Holidays in the coating are cathodically protected while the CP systems are
On, but will return to the native state and may corrode when the CP is
interrupted or is Off. Corrosion may be active when the CP systems are not
properly functioning.
Holidays in the coating are cathodically protected while the CP systems are
On, and are anodic when the CP systems are interrupted. The interrupted
value corresponds to the potential at the interface between the pipe and the
soil. There may be corrosion at the coating holidays even when the CP
systems are properly functioning.
Holidays in the coating are receiving no /insufficient protection, regardless
whether the CP systems are On or Off. Corrosion is active.

Although it may be of interest to categorize the direction of the current flow, it is more important
for DCVG to locate the epicenter of each anomaly, and to then compare and contrast the DCVG
results with results from other indirect inspection techniques at the same locations. Coating
damage and external corrosion is most likely at locations, where results from independent survey
techniques indicate the presence of an anomaly.

4.4

AC Current Attenuation (ACCA) Surveys

4.4.1

Purpose
AC Current Attenuation (ACCA) surveys are electromagnetic surveys,
and are used as an independent methodology to assess the overall quality
of coating on buried and submerged pipelines. The results can be used to
prioritize coating damage. Specifically, an AC current is applied to the
pipeline, typically through leads at test stations, and the location and
extent of coating damage is located, using the appropriate instrumentation
to detect AC currents.
There are typically two variations of the AC Current Attenuation survey
technique. The first is the low frequency ACCA, which is used to
evaluate the general coating condition for relatively large segments over a
long distance. The low frequency ACCA enables the ranking and
prioritization of pipeline segments for more detailed evaluation and
remediation.

47

The second variation is the high frequency ACCA used to assess the
coating quality of relatively small segments over short distances. This
facilitates a more discrete analysis of the condition of the external coating.
The magnitude of the current attenuation is used to prioritize observed
coating damage.

4.4.2

ACCA surveys can be performed even while the impressed

current CP systems are energized.
However, sacrificial anodes and bonds that are not disconnected
will be detected as anomalies. Thus, it is essential to know the
location of such features.
Also, sacrificial anodes and bonds that are not disconnected will
serve as a major source for signal loss.
ACCA studies can be conducted underneath magnetically
transparent materials, such as ice, water, concrete, and pavement.
The equipment used to conduct the ACCA surveys can be used to
determine the depth of cover for a pipeline and to identify
electrical interferences from foreign structures.

Methodology
(1)

One lead from a signal generator is connected to the pipeline

through one of the leads to a CP test station, while the other lead is
connected to earth, i.e., grounded, through a metal spike.

(2)

Constant AC signals having a specific signal output and frequency

are generated and transmitted down the pipeline.

(3)

The low and high frequency signals are measured, using a

detector/receiver unit to quantify the signal strength, and confirm
the frequency of the signal. By measuring the strength of the
signal, the attenuation of that signal can be determined. This
provides a measure of the extent of any coating damage.

If the pipe is well coated, there will only be a gradual

decrease in signal strength with increasing distance from
the point where the signal was applied.
The electrical properties of the coating, the total surface
area of the buried piping, and the frequency of the AC
signal are all factors, which will affect how far the signal
can be propagated down the pipeline.

48

4.4.3

(4)

The logarithmic rate of decay of the current (the attenuation)

between two given points along the pipeline is used as a measure
of the average condition of the pipeline coating.

(5)

Changes in the attenuation between two given points is used to as a

relative indicator of the quality of the coating, i.e., when there is
gradual attenuation, there are fewer anomalies, and when the signal
attenuates rapidly, the coating quality is compromised.

Data Acquisition
Data collected in the field must be stored in an appropriate data logger for
subsequent analysis.
Survey intervals may range from very short distances (e.g., a few meters)
to large distances, (e.g., a few hundred meters). The distances can be
measured by direct measurements, such as chainage, lasers, GPS
coordinates, or taken from the most current pipeline alignment sheets.
The position of observed anomalies is to be recorded.
The appropriate survey intervals are to be determined, based on the initial
field measurements.
Type of Data Collected
Test point reference
Station number
Distance between survey points
Current (signal strength) at the survey point
Calculated Parameters
Signal attenuation
Depth to centerline
Depth of cover
Coating quality

4.4.4

Theoretical Basis for Interpreting Results

The following equation approximates the signal behavior along an
isolated, uniformly well-coated pipeline in soil of uniform resistivity:
I(x) = Is10-ax

49

where,
I(x) = magnitude of signal at a given location
Is = magnitude of the source signal
a = attenuation rate at a given frequency
x = distance from source
Figure 27 illustrates the behavior of applied signals versus distance along
a pipeline from the source.

Figure 27 ACCA Signal Attenuation Versus Distance

The measure of pipeline resistance-to-earth will vary along a pipeline,
depending upon the quality of the coating. Well-coated areas will have
substantially higher resistance-to-earth, compared to poorly coated areas.
By virtue of the lower resistance, poorly coated areas will receive a larger
percentage of the applied AC signal. Thus, the magnitude of the signal
loss is proportional to the condition of the coating. The ratio of signals
over a length of pipeline will indicate the relative average coating
condition for that particular pipeline section, and the relative signal loss
per unit length is determined by measuring the signal received at both ends
of the pipe section.
To properly interpret AC Current Attenuation data, use the following
equation, to calculate attenuation, i.e., signal loss, per length of pipe:
20 log i1
i2
a=
d
where,
a = attenuation in decibels [dB] per unit length
i 1 = signal strength in milli-amperes [mA] at beginning of section

i 2 = signal strength in milli-amperes [mA] at end of section

d = length of section

50

The logarithmic ratios make it possible to normalize results relative to the

expected loss of signal strength with increased distance from the source.
Divide the log of the signal strength current by the length of the pipe
segment to calculate the attenuation per unit length. A graph of the
attenuation per unit length versus the distance along the pipeline can be
used to identify locations, where there may be significant external
corrosion. Figure 28 illustrates this.

Figure 28 Theoretical Signal Loss per Unit Length along a Pipeline

4.4.5

Interpretation
Consider results from ACCA field measurements, shown in Figure 29:

AC Current Attenuation (ACCA)

PCM
98 hz - dB Loss

mdB/ft

-mdB/ft
(Loss)

+mdB/ft
(Gain)

4 hz - dB Loss

Figure 29 Actual Signal Loss in mdB/ft Along a Pipeline

51

10+00

9+00

8+00

7+00

6+00

5+00

4+00

3+00

2+00

1+00

0+00

Distance (ft)

The high frequency signal is shown as the solid red line, and is particularly
useful when surveying small sections of piping. Per these guidelines, the
most severe external corrosion would most likely be found just beyond the
9+00 stationing, while the second highest priority would be assigned to
the indication centered at the 8+00 stationing.
Results from ACCA surveys should be interpreted in conjunction with
results from other survey techniques, as previously discussed. When
independent methodologies indicate an anomaly at a particular location, it
is more likely to be a true area of concern. Priorities should be assigned
for direct examination and possible remedial work, based on a review of
the results from each technique for the same points along the pipeline.
4.5

New Indirect Inspection Techniques Under Development

The previous sections have discussed the most commonly used indirect inspection
tools. However, there are limitations associated with each type of tool. For
example, it may be difficult to impossible to inspect piping within casings.
Fortunately, however, there are new, emerging indirect inspection techniques,
which are being developed. These include waveform analysis, guided wave
ultrasonics, and even radio wave techniques. Such new technologies may be used
in the ECDA process. However, it is the responsibility of the pipeline operators
to identify and validate the effectiveness of the new technology. For the U.S., it
will also be necessary to secure the approval of the DOT OPS at least 180 days
prior to conducting integrity assessments, using new technology per 49 CFR
192.921 (a) (4).

4.6

Overlaying Results on Spreadsheets and Charts

The primary indirect inspection/pipeline survey techniques have been described in
the above sections. There are strengths and weaknesses associated with each tool.
The next step in the process (methodology) is to integrate data from the different
inspection/survey techniques. The question is whether an indication at a
particular position on a section of pipe will be seen by both technique A and
technique B, and if so, will they have the same approximate severity? Hence, the
results from different techniques must be carefully aligned so that indications can
be compared.
When conducting surveys, the personnel conducting the surveys must provide
precise locations of the features along the pipeline. This includes the start and
end of each survey, as well as the location of any pipeline feature, such as valves,
bends, road crossings, etc. Typically, this is accomplished, using pipeline
stationing, as well as global positioning system (GPS) coordinates. Hand held
GPS units are readily available that can provide sub-meter positioning. Also,
units are becoming available that will provide sub-centimeter positioning.

52

(ft-M SL)

Ele vation
(o hm -cm )

R esistivity

Len gth (in)

0+0 0

F eatu res

F/ 5
F/6
F/7
F/8
F/9
F/1 0
F/1 1
F/1 2

F/ 3

F ENC E

FEN CE

F/1 4
F/1 5
F/1 6
F/1 7
F/1 8
F/1 9
F/2 0
F/2 1
F/2 2
F/2 3
F/2 4
LIFEN
NE CE
MA RK ER
TEST STA TIO
F/2N5
F/2 6
F/ 27
F/ 28
F/ 2 9
F/ 3 0
PI
F/3 1
F/ 32
F/ 33
F/ 34
F/3 5
F/ 36
F/3 7
F/3 8
F/3 9
F/4 0
F/4 1
F/4 2
F/4 3
F/ 4 4
F /4 5
L IN E MAR KE R SI NK H OL E
F/ 46
CL CR EEK
F/ 4 7
F/ 48
F/ER
49
LI NE MA RKF/5
0
FEN C E
F/ 52
F/ 53
F/ 54
F/5 5
F/5 6
F/5 7
F/ 5 8
F/5 9
F/ 60
F/6 1
F/6 2
F/6 3
F/6 4
F/6 5
F/6 6
NC EKE
L IN EFEMAR
F /6R7
F/6 8
F/ 6 9
D IR T R O AD
F/ 70
F/ 71
F/ 72
F/7 3
F/ 74
F/7 5
F/7 6
F/7 7
F/7 8
F/7 9
F/8 0
FEN
Fe
CE
nER
PO
FEN
TES
L
TES
W
IN
Ece
CE
TTMSL
SARK
IN
TATIO
TATIO
ESERNN
RE CTICL
FIEDI
R RT RO AD
F/ 82
LI NE MA RK ER
CA SI NG VMC
ENFEN
KI
T/5
NN
4 3/
O
CE
F/5N99
83
A GM -5F/8 4
F/8 5
F/8 6
F/8 7
F/8 8
F/ 8 9
F/9 0
F/ 91
F/ 9 2
F/ 93
F/ 94
F/9 5
F/ 96
F/9 7
F/9 8
F/9 9
F/1 0 0
F/ 1 01
F/ 1 02
F/ 1 03
F/ 10 4
F/ 10 5
F/ 1 06
F/1 0 7
F/ 1 08
F /1 09
F/1 1 0
F/1 11
F/1 12
F/ 11 3
F/ 11 4
F/ 11 5
F/1 1 6
F/1 1 7
F/1 1 8
F/1 1 9
F/1 2 0
F/1 2 1
F/1 2 2
F/ 12 3
F/1 2 4
FR GN TS
F/ 1 25
PI
F/ 1 26
F/ 12 7
1
28
CF/
E8
FLI
LIN
ENC
NE
E E
MAR
MA RK
KER
ER C ASI NG
TEVE
ST NT
SFEN
TATI
10 4
7/
O
N77
F/1 2 9
C L O LD RR R O W
F/1 3 0
LI
NE
MA
RK
ER
TEL E CA BLitc
E XO
F/ 13 1
ED GE H WD
Y *3h5 9
CL HW Y *3 5 9
ED
E HRW
*3S5 F/
9 1 33
LI NE
CAst
Te
FEN
MA
SIN
StRK
G
CE
a tio
VER
n
EN T
P
OG
WE
LIYNE
F/ 1 34
F/ 13 5
F/ 13 6
F/ 13 7
PI
F/ 13 8
F/1 3 9
AG M- 6
F/1 4 0
F/1 4 1
F/1 4 2
F/1 4 3
F/1 4 4
F/ 1 45
F/ 1 46
F/ 14 7
F/1 4 8
F/1 4 9
F/ 1 50
F/ 15 1
F/ 15 2
F/1 5 3
F/1 5 4
F/1 5 5
F/1 5 6
F/1 57
F/1 5 8
F/ 1 59
F/1 6 0
F/1 6 1
F /1 62
F/ 16 3
F /1 64
F/ 1 65
D itc h
F/ 16 6
F/ 16 7
F/ 16 8
FEN CE
FE NC E
F/ 16 9
F/ 17 0
F/ 17 1
F/ 17 2
F/ 17 3
F/ 17 4
F/1 7 5
F/1 7 6
F/1 7 7
F/1 7 8
F/1 7 9
F/1 8 0
F/ 18 1
F/ 18 2
F/ 18 3
F/ 18 4
F/ 18 5
F/ 1 86
F/1 8 7
F/ 1 88
F/ 1 89
F/ 19 0
F/ 1 91
F/ 19 2
F/ 19 3
L IN E MAR KE R
F/ 19 4
F/ 19 5
L I NE MA RKE R F/1 9 6
DI TCH
CL
Tr
a
il
F/1 9 6A
DI TCH
F/1 9 7
FIE
LD R O AD
F/1 9 8
F/1 9 9
F/2 0 0
F/ 20 1
F/2 0 2
F/2 0 3
F/ 2 04
F /2 05
F /2 06
F /2 07
F/2 0 8
F/ 2 09
LI NE MA RK ER
F/ 21 0
F/ 2 11
F/2 1 2
F/ 2 13
F /2 14
F /2 15
F/2 16
F/ 2 17
F/ 21 8
F/ 2 19
F/2 2 0
F/2 2 1
F/2 2 2
F/2 2 3
24
FIE LD RF/
O2AD
r ker
F/ 2 25
HMa
ig h
Ba n k
C L CR EE K
F/2 2 6
F/ 22 7
Ma rk er
H ig h Ba n k
F/ 22 8
J unEL
c tio
nBBo
xD N
TEST
SH
LSTA
ON
TIO
TE ST STATIF/2
O N2 9
F/2 3 0
F /2 31
F/2 3 2
F/2 33
F/ 2 34
F/ 23 5
F/ 2 36
L IN E MAR KER F/ 2 37
F/ 2 38
AG M- 7

L INFE
E MAR
NC EKE R

AG
T
EST
M-4STA TIO N

C om me nt

C urrent (mA )

% IR

Po tential (m V)

It is recommended that sub-meter GPS measurements be collected at 100 foot

intervals and at every pipeline feature or appurtenance along the right-of-way.
This includes recording the position of each pipeline marker, the edge and center
of roads, waterways, ditches, fences, overhead power lines, all foreign line and
utility crossings, any sections of exposed pipe, and any locations, with evidence
of soil erosion along the right-of-way. It is also critical to mark the location of
any points of intersection (PIs), which indicates a change in direction of the
pipeline.
Once the data from different sources has been collected, the different sets of data
should be entered into a computer spreadsheet or database so that the results can
be compared point by point along the pipeline. There are commercial programs
available to provide these integrations. However, it can also be accomplished,
using spreadsheet and charting programs, such as Microsoft Excel, as
illustrated in Figure 30.

- 20 00

- 15 00

- 10 00

C IS

-5 00

1 00 %
0

50 %

D CV G

1 50 0
0%

1 00 0

PCM

50 0

4
10+00
2 0+00
30+00
4 0+00
50+00
6 0+0 0

IL I

1.E + 05

2 00

53
70+00
80+0 0
90 +00
100 +00
1 10+00

S O IL

1.E + 00

1 50

P ro file

1 00

Figure 30 Alignment of Indirect Inspection Results

Compare the results from different survey techniques at corresponding points

along the pipeline when assessing anomalies. Do not rely upon the results from a
120+0 0

single indirect inspection technique. Instead, overlay results and compare them in
order to gain a consistent picture.
4.7

Classification and Prioritization of the Anomalies

NACE RP-0502-2002 requires that the severity of indications/anomalies be
estimated, based on the likelihood of corrosion activity under year-round
conditions. The classifications are severe, moderate, or minor. Table 10 below
(and Table 3 of the NACE RP 0502-2002) provides the basis for assigning severe,
moderate, or minor classification to each indication. Then, the follow-up to these
classifications is to assign a prioritization (immediate, scheduled, or monitored)
for the direct assessment of the anomaly. Table 11 (and Table 4 of the NACE RP
0502-2002) provides the basis for assigning the prioritization. The process steps
are as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

Assign a severity to each indication for each indirect inspection technique

(see Table 10.)
Compare the severity ratings, tool-by-tool for each indication.
Ensure consistency of results between different indirect inspection tools.
If inconsistent:
a. Consider additional indirect inspections techniques to resolve
discrepancies that cannot be explained by the inherent capabilities of
the tools or specific, localized pipeline features. Typically, the cost to
run an additional inspection tool will be less expensive than the cost
for additional digs.
b. Consider preliminary direct examinations to resolve discrepancies.
Evaluate for localized, isolated causes of the discrepancies.
Compare results (the list of classifications for the indications) for each
ECDA region with the pre-assessment results and the known prior history.
a. If the results from indirect inspections are NOT consistent with preassessment results and known prior history, review the feasibility of
using the ECDA process. Also, review the definition of each ECDA
region.
b. If the results from indirect inspections are NOT consistent with preassessment results and known prior history, consider using other
proven integrity assessment technologies, i.e., in-line inspections or
hydrostatic pressure testing for certain pipeline segments.

(5)

The prioritization of the indications will be used as the basis for

establishing the order of the direct examinations. This step requires the
excavation of the pipeline, such that the exterior surfaces of the pipeline
can be visually examined. The location and order of these excavations are
established, based on a prioritization process, as described above, which
categorizes the severe, moderate, and minor indications into immediate,

54

scheduled, or monitored locations.

Section 5.1.1 references the
prioritizations, which are established from the indirect inspections, and
Section 5.1.2 discusses the number of required excavations and direct
examinations, as required, based on the severity and assigned priorities.
a. Excavation will typically cost between $7,000 and $12,000 in rural
areas, and can cost in excess of $50,000 USD in urban areas.
b. All indications prioritized as immediate must be excavated and
examined, as required by the NACE recommended practice RP-05022002 and referenced in the U.S. IMP rule.
c. However, sometimes it may not be economically practical to conduct
multiple excavations along a pipeline. The total cost of the multiple
excavations must be compared to the costs for alternate integrity
assessment techniques, such as retrofitting the piping to conduct inline inspections or conducting hydrostatic pressure tests. Pipeline
operators should review the economics and, as appropriate, consider
using other, proven integrity assessment technologies.

If you cannot conduct other indirect examinations and obtain meaningful results
or cannot conduct preliminary direct examinations, it might not be possible to
use the ECDA process for those particular pipeline segments. Instead, there may
be no option but to conduct in-line inspections or hydrotests.
One critical aspect of the ECDA process is assigning severity classifications to the
results from the indirect inspections. Minor, moderate, or severe is
assigned to each of the results from inspecting each indication, and is used when
determining whether an indication needs immediate action, scheduled action,
or is suitable for monitoring. Thus, the choice has economic consequences in
so far as the potential number of direct examinations, i.e., digs. Figure 31
illustrates minor, moderate, and severe indications for theoretical results
from a slow cycle CIPS survey. Note that small dips will occur for small
indications, but the On and Off potentials are above the 850 mV criterion.
For the case of moderate indications, Off potentials may be below the 850
mV criterion. For the case of severe indications, both the On and Off
potentials would be below the 850 mV criterion.
The severity of the indications should be determined for each indirect inspection
tool, as shown in Table 10. Companies providing the indirect inspection services
should be able to provide the severity of each indication. Then the results from
the different techniques should be integrated to provide a single quantification for
each indication. If there are major contradictions between results from the
different indirect inspection tools, the source should be investigated. It may be
necessary to repeat the indirect inspections, or possibly use an additional tool.

55

Minor

Severe

Moderate

-850 mV

Figure 31 Illustration of Minor, Moderate and Severe CIPS Indications

Table 10 Assigning Severity Classification to Indications

Tool/Environment
Minor Indications
CIPS / Aerated, moist Small dips with the
soil
On
and
Off
potentials above the
CP criteria
DCVG / Aerated, Low voltage drop,
moist soil
cathodic conditions at
indication when CP is
On and Off
ACVG or Pearson Low voltage drop
survey
/Aerated,
moist soil
Low signal loss
Electromagnetic
AC
Current Small increase in
attenuation per unit
Attenuation
length

Moderate Indications
Severe Indications
Medium dips or Off Large dips or On
potentials below the CP and Off potentials
criteria
below the CP criteria
Medium voltage drop
and/or
neutral
conditions at indication
when CP is Off
Medium voltage drop

High voltage drop and

/ or anodic conditions
when CP is On or
Off
High voltage drop

Medium signal loss

Moderate increase in
attenuation per unit
length

Large signal loss

Large increase in
attenuation per unit
length

56

Table 11 Prioritization of Indications from the Indirect Inspections

Immediate Action Required Scheduled Action Required
Suitable for Monitoring
Severe indications in close All
remaining
severe All remaining indications
proximity, regardless of
indications
prior corrosion
All remaining moderate
indications in regions,
Individual
severe
indications or groups of
which have previously had
moderate indications in
moderate corrosion
regions,
which
have Groups
of
minor
previously had moderate
indications in regions,
corrosion
which have previously had
severe corrosion
Moderate indications in
regions,
which
have
previously had severe
corrosion

5.0

Direct Examinations
Direct examinations by means of excavation and physical examination of the condition of
the pipe and coating are necessary to identify corrosion areas and to verify the
effectiveness of the ECDA process. The following steps are involved in the direct
examination phase:

Prioritization of indications found during the indirect inspections

Excavation, examination, and data collection at areas where corrosion is most likely

Measurement of coating damage and corrosion defects

Evaluation of pipe strength at corrosion defects

Root cause analysis

In-process evaluation

5.1

Purpose
The objectives of the direct examination step are to determine which indications
from the indirect inspections are most severe and to collect data to assess
corrosion activity. In order to perform a direct examination, the pipe must be
excavated to facilitate visual inspection for coating damage and corrosion. Pipe
excavation and examination is expensive and should be done in the minimum
57

number of locations necessary to assess an ECDA region. Excavation locations

will be selected on the basis of the severity of the perceived threat of the
indications, using data collected during the Pre-Assessment and Indirect
Inspection steps of the ECDA process.
5.1.1

Prioritization
In setting the criteria for classification within a region, the year round
conditions (temperature, moisture content of the soil, etc. at the exterior
surface of the pipeline), corrosion history, indirect inspection data, and
other relevant factors specific to each region shall be considered.
Indications or groups of indications shall generally be classified into three
prioritized categories as follows:
Immediate:
This category includes indications that are considered likely to have
ongoing corrosion activity and that, when coupled with prior corrosion,
pose an immediate threat to the pipeline under normal operating
conditions. Multiple severe indications in close proximity and isolated
indications classified as severe by multiple inspection techniques are to be
placed in this category. For initial ECDA inspections, any location at
which unresolved discrepancies between inspection techniques are noted
shall be placed into this category. Immediate indications are be excavated
and inspected immediate action is required.
Scheduled:
This category includes indications that are considered as having ongoing
corrosion activity but, when coupled with prior corrosion, do not pose an
immediate threat to the pipeline under normal operating conditions.
Isolated severe indications that were not placed in the immediate category
shall be placed in this category. Scheduled indications shall be prioritized
by order of severity.
Monitored:
This category includes indications considered to be inactive or as having
the lowest probability of prior or ongoing corrosion. Monitored
indications shall be prioritized by order of severity.

5.1.2

Number of Excavations
There are differences in opinion regarding the proper interpretation of the
text in Section 5.10 of NACE RP 0502-2002. This is expected to be one
of the topics of discussion when the original document is reviewed at
NACE CORROSION/2005. Hence, the reader is cautioned to comply

58

with the most recent approved version of that document. The comments
below have been based on the 2002 version of the document and reflect
the overall intent of the document, based on discussions with committee
members and cognizant pipeline professionals.
Consider several cases, depending upon the number and severity of
indications identified by the indirect inspections:
No Indications in Pipeline Segments

Examine all the ECDA regions and pipeline segments. Determine

which segment and ECDA region is most likely to have external
corrosion (per the Pre-Assessment Step). A minimum of one
direct examination is required in the ECDA region determined as
most likely to have external corrosion. For the first time the
ECDA process is being applied, two direct examinations are
required.

NACE RP 0502-2002 states in section 5.10.1.1 that if more than

one ECDA region has been identified as likely to have external
corrosion (per the Pre-Assessment Step), additional direct
examinations should be considered. The key word here is
should. The additional digs are not mandated by the word
shall. Accordingly pipeline professionals should conduct the
mandated direct examinations, and review the results in
conjunction with results from the indirect inspections. They can
then make the determination regarding whether additional direct
examinations are warranted in order to ensure pipeline integrity.

When direct examinations are mandated within a particular ECDA

region and no indications were obtained during the indirect
inspections, the question is where to conduct the direct
examination. The particular location(s) should be selected, based
on the information collected during the Pre-Assessment Step.
Alternatively, if no locations are identified, consider locations,
which may be required for other direct assessments, such as ICDA.

Indications Classified as Immediate

All indications that are prioritized as immediate require direct

examination. Thus, all immediate indications in all ECDA
regions have the requirement for direct examination.

Please keep in mind, however, the practical application of that

requirement. When there are multiple immediate indications it is
not practical to excavate and examine them all simultaneously.

59

Accordingly, they should be examined, based on relative priorities

as established during the Pre-Assessment and Indirect Inspection
Steps.

Once data is collected from the first direct examination,

comparisons can be made between the indirect inspection and the
direct examination results. Was there a close correlation between
results from the indirect inspections and the size/depth of defects,
based on the direct examinations? Alternately, did the indirect
examinations suggest significantly larger indications than were
found during the direct examinations?

As appropriate, priorities may be changed. Thus, indications,

which were initially classified as immediate may be reclassified
as scheduled. Then, those indications would be examined per
the guidelines associated with scheduled indications.

Indications Classified as Scheduled

For all ECDA regions that contain scheduled indications, but do

not contain any immediate indications: The pipeline company
should prioritize the indications, based on
o
o
o

Indirect inspection results

Historical corrosion records
Current corrosive conditions (such as measured by metal
coupons or probes)

Direct examinations follow:

o

After prioritizing the indications, the pipeline operator must

perform a minimum of one direct examination (two for the
first time the ECDA process is applied). This (these)
examination (s) must be applied to the most severe of the
scheduled indications. Note that the requirement in
NACE RP 0502-2002 Section 5.10.2.2.1 is not tied to
individual ECDA regions, but to an individual pipeline.

If an ECDA region contains scheduled indications as well as one

or more immediate indications, the requirements in Section
5.10.2.2.2 are slightly different. For this case:
o

All the immediate indications must be examined, based

on prioritization. Note that following the first direct
examinations of the immediate indications, the remaining

60

indications can be re-evaluated and reprioritized, using best

engineering judgments.
Then, from among the list of scheduled indications, at
least one scheduled indication must also be selected (two
for the first time the ECDA process is applied). Direct
examination(s) must follow. Per the NACE document that
scheduled indication and the direct examination should
be located in the ECDA region, which is considered the
most likely to have external corrosion. Note that the
requirement is for one (or two) direct examination(s) per
pipeline not per ECDA region along the pipeline.
There may also be an increase in the number of required
direct examinations, based on the results of the required
examinations, per Section 5.10.2.2.3 of NACE RP 05022002. If the results of the direct examination reveal
corrosion which is deeper than 20% of the original wall
thickness and is deeper or more severe than an immediate
indication, at least one more direct examination will be
required (two for the first time the ECDA process is
applied).

Indications Classified as Monitored

The words within NACE RP0502-2002 Section 5.10.2.3.1 have been a
source of controversy and confusion regarding the number of required
direct examinations. The text is expected to be clarified at committee
meetings, which will be held at NACE CORROSION/2005. Any changes
should be published in subsequent versions of RP-0205. Some have taken
the text to require excavations in each ECDA region. However, that
would not be consistent with the text in Section 5.10.2.2.2 for scheduled
indications or Section 5.10.2.3.2 for monitored indications. This
Guidelines document will be based on conducting a minimum of one
direct examination of a monitored indication per pipeline, rather than
per ECDA region. The reader is cautioned to use the most current version
of the NACE recommended practice.

If the results from indirect inspections of a pipeline report that the

pipeline has a monitored indications but no immediate nor
scheduled indications, then at least one excavation is required in
the ECDA region at the most severe of the monitored indication
(two the first time the ECDA process is applied).

If results from indirect inspections of a pipeline is that the pipeline

has multiple monitored indications but no immediate nor
scheduled indications, at least one direct examination is required
(two for the first time the ECDA process is applied). This must be

61

within the ECDA region, which has been identified as the most
likely for external corrosion to occur, per the Pre-Assessment.
Note: In addition to the number of direct examinations identified above, there will be
additional excavations and direct assessments of the pipeline required as part of the PostAssessment step. One randomly selected location must be directly examined to confirm
the effectiveness of the ECDA process (two locations for the first time the ECDA
process is being applied). This is required per Section 6.4 of NACE RP 0502-2004 and
Section 6.3.1 of this Guidelines publication.
5.2

Excavation and Data Collection

Excavation of a pressurized pipeline requires extreme caution. A company
approved procedure for locating and excavating the pipeline using experienced,
qualified personnel shall be followed. Each excavation should be well
documented with photographs. Table 12 is a matrix showing data to be collected
during an ECDA excavation and direct examination. A Direct Examination
Worksheet that provides for data collection is presented in Attachment C. If the
direct examination includes screening for stress corrosion cracking, additional
data elements and a different priority ranking may be used. Refer to NACE RP
0204-2004 for Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment guidelines.
5.2.1

Locating Position Along Pipeline

It is extremely important that the area to be excavated is at the correct
physical location on the pipeline.

Use survey station and/or milepost references from alignment

sheets, and GPS coordinates if they are available.

Record upstream and downstream fixed reference points and

distances measured from each.
Physical references, which
correlate directly with the indirect inspection surveys such as CP
test sites, rectifiers, road crossings, should be used where possible.

Determine and record geographical coordinates with GPS units

having sub-meter accuracy.

Mark upstream and downstream excavation limits with flags or

stakes.

Additional flags or stakes offset from the pipeline are also useful
because the original markers placed over the pipe may be removed
during excavation.

62

When analyzing results from the indirect inspections, it is essential to properly align the
data from each of the indirect inspection techniques. Match the data from each indirect
inspection technique to pipeline features and GPS coordinates having sub-meter accuracy.
When overlaying inspection results, select a sufficiently fine scale, such that it is possible
to determine if the different inspection tools are seeing the same indications. Use the
same precision when marking positions along the pipeline, prior to excavation and direct
examinations. Remember that incorrect alignments may result in the generation of
meaningless data, wasted money, and bad digs.

5.2.2

Excavations
Excavation of a pressurized pipeline poses risks that must be dealt with
accordingly. As a minimum, the following precautions shall be taken:

5.2.3

Use approved company procedures for excavation.

Excavations shall be supervised by a qualified individual.

Spotting and excavation shall only be performed by experienced

and qualified individuals.

Consider alternative excavation procedures such as vacuum

excavation or hand excavation in congested areas.

Make use of One Call systems when they are available.

Assess Condition of External Coating

After the pipeline is excavated, the first task is to assess the condition of
the coating.

Record type of coating (e.g., FBE, coal tar, tapeetc). NACE

Standard RP0169 is a good reference to use for determining
coating types.

Carefully examine coating for any damage.

Record general coating condition (e.g., excellent, partially

disbonded, badly disbondedetc.)

Take photographs

63

5.2.4

Measure Pipe-to-Soil Potential

Immediately following an excavation, pipe-to-soil potentials should be
measured using a Cu/CuSO4 reference electrode around the pipe at both
ends of the excavation. Potentials should be measured at the 12:00, 3:00,
6:00 and 9:00 oclock positions around the pipe. Current interrupters can
be used to measure both the On and Off potentials.

5.2.5

Measure Soil Resistivity and pH

Soil resistivity measurements should be made for soil taken from around
the pipe. Soil resistivity measurements can be used to assess the
corrosivity of the soil. Common methods used in the field are the
Wenner Four Pin method, the Soil Box method, and the Single Probe
Method, which uses an electronic corrosivity/resistivity probe.
The soil pH should be measured and recorded at the time of the direct
examination.
Also, determine pH of any water in groundwater near the pipe, using
hydrion paper.

5.2.6

Collect Soil Samples and Groundwater Samples

Soil samples should be collected at each excavation site. Place the
samples in sealed containers and clearly mark the container with the date
and location information for ease of identification in the future. Similarly,
if groundwater is present, samples should be taken and the sample
containers clearly marked.
Send or take the soil samples to a soil testing laboratory to (a) classify the
soil per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), (b) measure the
moisture content, (c) measure the sulfide ion concentration, (d) measure
the soil conductivity, (e) measure the pH, (f) measure the chloride ion
concentration, and (g) measure the sulfate ion concentration. These will
characterize the environment on the exterior of the pipeline.
Additional details on the soil analyses are in NACE RP 0502-2002.

5.2.7

Measure pH of Liquids Underneath Disbonded Coating

Carefully pull back any disbonded coating and look for liquids between
the pipe and coating. Using a syringe or cotton swab, collect a small
64

sample. Measure and record the pH of this electrolyte using hydrion

paper. Another method is to carefully slide the hydrion paper between the
coating and the pipe where liquid is present, remove it and record the
reading.
Pipe temperature should be measured and recorded.
5.2.8

Remove Coating and Oxides; Measure Depth, Size of Indications

Using a company-approved procedure, remove all disbonded

coating.

If disbonded coating continues beyond the limits of the excavation,

extend the excavation until well bonded coating is encountered.

Please note that some coatings such as coal tar may contain
asbestos, and may require certified asbestos abatement personnel
and containment procedures to remove.

Record the color, type and consistency of any corrosion products

found. Collect samples, keeping contamination to a minimum.
The following are examples of common corrosion products:

Iron Carbonate, White, Pasty. Indicates high CO2

(FeCO3):
environment, anaerobic, CP shielding
(CaCO3):
Calcium Carbonate, White, Powdery, Associated
with cathodically protected pipe
(FeS): Iron Sulfide, Black, metallic/hard/pasty/powdery, associated
with anaerobic conditions, microbial activity
(FeO, Fe3O4, FeO/OH):
Iron Oxides and Hydroxides, orange,
powdery, scaly, anaerobic conditions, electrochemical variations
on pipe surface
(NaHCO3): Nahcolite, crystalline and powdery, deposit
cathodically and temperature dependent, variable CO2 conditions
on pipe surface

Record whether or not corrosion appears to be active.

Thoroughly clean all exposed pipe by abrasive blasting

(sandblasting) or equivalent mechanical means, and thoroughly
examine all exposed surfaces for evidence of pitting. If the pipe is
65

to be examined for the presence of stress corrosion cracking

(SCC), a less abrasive blasting medium such as walnut shells or
high-pressure water should be used.

5.3

Measure and record actual wall thickness with ultrasonic

equipment in several unpitted areas on each joint of exposed pipe.
Conduct a spot check for internal corrosion at the 6:00 position.

Record the location of any girth welds and the position of the
longitudinal seam, if present.

Carefully examine the longitudinal seam for the presence of

selective seam corrosion. Measure and record the length. Estimate
the depth that any selective seam corrosion extends beneath the
pipe surface.

Accurately measure and record the location, length, width and

depth of any corrosion pitting found. It is also a common practice
to make tracings using tracing paper and charcoal to document
the corrosion areas.

If RSTRENG is to be used for remaining strength calculations,

sufficient depth measurements required to define a river-bottom
profile of the corroded area will need to be taken. Refer to
procedures for use of RSTRENG.

Defects other than external corrosion, such as dents, gouges, arc

burns, SCC, etc. may be discovered during the ECDA direct
examination process.
These defects shall be addressed in
accordance with applicable regulations and company procedures.

Remaining Strength Calculations

Evaluate the remaining strength of corroded areas found during the direct
examination phase. Common methods are ASME B31G, Modified B31G,
RSTRENG, and DNV Standard RP-F101. The operating company shall
determine which method to follow.
Depending on the results of the calculations, it may be necessary to repair or
replace the pipe at corroded areas. If the calculated safe pressure is less than the
operating pressure at a location, it will be necessary to reduce the pressure until a
repair is made.

66

Common corrosion defect repair methods include the following:

Pipe Replacement

Type A - Reinforcing Sleeve

Type B - Reinforcing and Pressure Containing Sleeve

Composite Repair Sleeve

Type A reinforcing sleeves are not welded to the pipe at the end of the sleeves.
As such, they provide some mechanical reinforcement, but do not provide
pressure containment. Type B reinforcing and pressure containing sleeves are
welded to the pipeline, and as such, provide pressure containment. Both Type A
and B sleeves fully encircle the existing pipeline.
After completion of pipe repairs, if any, the coating shall be repaired in
accordance with a company approved repair coating system. The survey stations
of the limits of coating repair shall be recorded. The pipeline shall then be padded
and backfilled in accordance with company procedures.
5.4

Root Cause Analysis

Pipeline operators shall make every effort to identify the root cause of corrosion
found with the ECDA process. The following are a few examples of root causes.
More than one root cause may apply for a particular location.

Inadequate CP current

Electrical interference

Coating damaged during original construction

Poor coating at field joints

Backfilled prior to coating being cured

Coating damage due to third party activities

Coating damage due to soil stress

Pipeline operators shall take appropriate mitigative action dependent on the root
cause(s) identified. For example, it may be necessary to install additional ground
beds to achieve CP at an acceptable level. If widespread disbonded coating is
found, it may be necessary to implement a recoating program.
67

5.5

In-Process Evaluation
In order to validate the process prior to proceeding to the post-assessment phase
of ECDA, it is necessary to continually evaluate the results of the direct
examinations with respect to the indirect inspection results. The purpose of the
evaluation is to assess the criteria used to prioritize and classify the individual
indications. It may be necessary to adjust the prioritization or classification
criteria prior to proceeding to the post assessment phase of ECDA.
Assessing Prioritization Criteria

Pipeline operators shall assess the extent and severity of corrosion relative
to the assumptions made in establishing the priority categories for repair
(scheduled, immediate and monitored).

If existing corrosion is consistently less severe than first rated, it is an

option to modify the criteria and reprioritize all indications.

If existing corrosion is consistently more severe than first rated, the

criteria must be modified and all indications reprioritized.

Any indication for which comparable direct examination measurements

show more serious conditions than suggested by the indirect inspection
data shall be moved to a more severe priority category.

Assessing Classification Criteria

Pipeline operators shall assess the corrosion activity at each excavation

relative to the criteria used to classify the severity of indications. (minor,
moderate and severe).

If the corrosion activity is consistently less severe than classified earlier,

an operator may consider adjusting the classifications accordingly. This
may also affect the prioritization criteria. For initial ECDA applications,
no classification or prioritization criteria shall be downgraded unless there
is clear technical justification for doing so.

If the corrosion activity is worse than classified, the criteria for classifying
the severity of all indications shall be appropriately adjusted. The need for
additional indirect inspections shall be considered. Consideration shall
also be given to adjusting the criteria for prioritization.

If repeated direct examinations show more severe corrosion than indicated

by the indirect inspection data, the feasibility of using ECDA for the
region shall be reevaluated. It may be necessary to re-survey the region
68

using different indirect inspection tools, or even abandon the ECDA

process and use in-line inspection or hydrostatic testing to assess the
integrity of a segment.
Reclassification and Reprioritization
The following guidelines should be followed when reclassifying or reprioritizing
indications:

For initial ECDA applications, no immediate or scheduled indications

shall be downgraded unless clear technical justification is provided.

Reprioritization is required when existing corrosion is more severe than

assumed.

Any indication originally placed in the immediate category should be

moved no lower than the scheduled category.

Reclassification is required when the results from direct examinations

show more severe corrosion than indicated by the indirect inspections.

For each root cause, the operator shall identify and reevaluate all other
indications, which occur in the pipeline segment where similar root causes
exist.

If a repair or recoating is performed, the indication may be removed from

further consideration once the root cause analysis and mitigation activities
are complete.

If remediation is performed, an indication originally placed in the

immediate category may be moved to the scheduled priority category,
provided that additional indirect inspections justify the downgrading.

If remediation is performed, an indication originally placed in the

scheduled category may be moved to the monitored priority category,
provided that additional indirect inspections justify the downgrading.

69

Table 12 Data Collected During Direct Examination at ECDA Dig Site

Data Element
Pipe-to-soil potential
Soil Resistivity
Soil Samples
Soil pH
Groundwater Samples
Coating Type
Coating condition
Coating Disbondment
Electrolyte pH/sample
from beneath coating
Pipe Temperature
Photograph of dig site
Corrosion Product
Samples/Analysis
Corrosion Product
Description
Corrosion Product
Photographs
Corrosion defect
measurements
Corrosion Defect
Photographs
Weld seam type
Wall thickness
measurements

Notes:

When Collected
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
Before Coating
Removal
After Coating
Removal
After Coating
Removal
After Coating
Removal
After Coating
Removal
After Coating
Removal
After Coating
Removal
After Coating
Removal

Use and Interpretation of Results

Comparison with ground pipe-to-soil
potentials
Related to soil corrosiveness and CP
effectiveness.
Classification of soil type, ion
concentrations and soil properties.
Related to soil corrosiveness. Useful for
root cause analysis.
Related to soil corrosiveness. Useful for
root cause analysis.
Essential for root cause analysis.

Ranking
A
A
B
B
B
A

Essential for root cause analysis.

Essential for root cause analysis.

Useful for root cause analysis.

Useful for root cause analysis.

Recommended documentation.

Useful in determining corrosion

mechanism or identifying soil
contaminants.
Recommended documentation.

Recommended documentation.

Essential for remaining strength

calculation.
Recommended documentation.

Essential information for integrity

assessment.
Essential information for integrity
assessment. Verify pipe wall thickness.
Screen for internal corrosion.

A - Essential for integrity assessment and root cause analysis

B - Valuable information for root cause analysis
C - Optional, but good to have for documentation and future reference

70

6.0

Post Assessment
Post-assessment is the final step in the ECDA process. The primary objectives of the post
assessment step are to define the re-assessment intervals and to assess the overall
effectiveness of the ECDA process. Post-assessment is necessary in order to verify that
ECDA is a valid assessment method for a pipeline segment and that the correct tools are
being used. The post-assessment step includes the following activities.

Remaining life calculations

Definition of re-assessment intervals
Assessment of ECDA effectiveness
Feedback

6.1

Purpose of Post-Assessment
If no corrosion defects are found during the direct assessment step, remaining life
calculation are not needed, and the remaining life can be taken as that of a new
pipeline. If corrosion defects are found, then the remaining life of the pipeline in
the ECDA region must be estimated in order to be able to determine the reinspection interval.
For the purpose of this calculation, it is assumed that the most severe corrosion
flaw remaining in the pipeline is of the same dimensions as the most severe
corrosion damage found during the direct examination step.
6.1.1

External Corrosion Growth Rate

The external corrosion growth rate is an essential variable needed for
calculation of the remaining life of a pipeline segment. Actual corrosion
rates are difficult to predict or measure, since the actual conditions at all
locations where corrosion may be occurring are not known. Corrosion
rates should always be estimated on the high side. Whatever method is
used should be well documented.
The growth rate used in the remaining life calculation should be based on
actual corrosion rate data applicable to the ECDA region if available. For
example, if direct measurements over a known time period are available
from maintenance records for the region being assessed, or for a similar
one, the actual growth rate for those specific locations can be calculated.
A conservative approach would be to use the default corrosion rate value
of 0.4 mm/y (16 mpy) from Appendix D of NACE RP 0502. This value
can be reduced by up to 24% if documented evidence shows that CP for
the segment being evaluated has had at least 40 mV of polarization
(considering IR drop) for most of the time since installation.

71

Linear polarization resistance (LPR) or buried corrosion coupon data if

available can also be used to estimate corrosion rates, but again, the results
of these methods may not be representative of all locations within the
segment being evaluated.
References are also available which document historical corrosion rates
based on environmental soil conditions. Table 13 is from Uhlig's
Corrosion Handbook - Second Edition - Copyright 2000. If corrosion
rates from this table are used, it is recommended that the pitting corrosion
rate values from the maximum column be used for remaining life
calculations.
Table 13 Uhligs Corrosion Rates for Steel in Soil (in mpy)
(Uhlig's Corrosion Handbook - Second Edition - Copyright 2000)
Expressed in Mils Per Year (1/1000-inch per year)
Environmental
Factors
Soil Resistivity
Less Than 1,000
1,000 to 5,000
5,000 to 12,000
Greater Than
12,000
Drainage
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good

6.1.2

General Corrosion Rates

Maximum
Minimum
Average

Pitting Corrosion Rates

Maximum
Minimum
Average

2.5
2.3
1.3

0.7
0.2
0.2

1.3
0.7
0.7

12.2
17.7
9.1

4.3
2.0
2.4

7.9
5.5
5.5

1.4

0.1

0.6

10.2

1.2

4.3

2.3
1.5
2.5
0.9

1.5
0.4
0.7
0.1

1.8
0.9
0.9
0.4

17.7
9.1
12.2
7.1

6.3
2.0
3.1
1.2

11.0
5.5
6.3
4.3

Remaining Life Calculation

The remaining life of the pipeline in an ECDA region is the time it will
take for the most severe remaining corrosion anomaly still remaining
within ECDA region to grow to either leakage or failure. Remaining life
should be calculated using a sound engineering method, which is properly
referenced and documented. It is recommended that the conservative
method from NACE RP 0502-2002 section 6.2.4.1 be used to calculate
remaining life as a start. If this method proves to be overly conservative,
another technically justified method can be used.
The Time until Leakage (TL) would simply be the remaining wall
thickness at the corrosion anomaly divided by the corrosion rate. The
relevant equations for TL and Time until Failure (TF) are:
72

TF = C SM

t
GR

TL =

td
GR

Where:

6.1.3

C=

Calibration Factor = 0.85 (dimensionless)

TF =

Time Until Failure (years)

TL =

Time Until Leakage (years)

SMYS =

Specified Minimum Yield Strength (PSIG)

YP =

Yield Pressure (PSIG)

MAOP =

Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (PSIG)

FP =

Failure Pressure (PSIG)

MPR =

MAOP Ratio = MAOP/YP

FPR =

Failure Pressure Ratio = FP/YP

SM =

Safety Margin = FPR - MPR

t=

Nominal Wall Thickness (inches)

d=

Corrosion depth (inches)

OD =

Outside Diameter (inches)

GR =

Growth Rate (inches per year)

Examples of Remaining Life Calculations

Example 1
ECDA direct examinations on a 30 x 0.375 X52 gas pipeline with an
MAOP of 936 PSIG revealed a worst case corrosion area 6 long with a
maximum depth of 150 mils. What is the remaining life of the ECDA
region?

73

1.

In accordance with Section 6.2.2 of NACE RP 0502, the maximum

remaining flaw size is assumed to be the same as the most severe
indication excavated (6 inches long x 0.150 inches deep).

2.

Using ASME B31G, the calculated failure pressure (FP) of the

pitted area is 1222 PSIG.

3.

Calculate Yield Pressure (YP) using the Barlow formula:

YP =
4.

2 SMYS t 2 52000 0.375

=
= 1300 PSIG
OD
30

Calculate Failure Pressure Ratio (FPR), MAOP Ratio (MPR) and

Safety Margin (SM):
FPR =

FP 1222
=
= 0.940
YP 1300

MPR =

MAOP 936
=
= 0.720
YP
1300

SM = FPR MPR = 0.940 0.720 = 0.220

5.

The corrosion growth rate (GR) is assumed to be the default value

of 16 mpy = 0.016 inches/year. The time until failure is calculated
as follows:
TF = C SM

t
GR

TF = 0.85 0.220
6.

The time until leakage (TL) for

a 150 mil pit in 0.375 wall
pipe at the same corrosion rate (16 mpy) is calculated as follows:
TL =

7.

0.375
= 4.4 Years
.0160

t d 0.375 0.150
=
= 14.1 Years
.0160
GR

The remaining life of the pipeline in the ECDA region is taken as

the lesser of the calculated values in steps 5 and 6 above. In this
example, remaining life would be the time until failure occurs (4.4
years).

74

In the example given above, the conservative default value of 16 mpy was
used for the corrosion growth rate. If it can be shown that CP for the
segment has met the 40 mV polarization criteria for most of its life, the
default value can be reduced to 12.2 mpy. Recalculating TF and TL
would give values of 5.7 and 18.4 years respectively.
If the soil resistivity and drainage characteristics are known, a lower value
could be selected from Table 6.0. For example, if the ECDA region was
in soil with a resistivity greater than 12,000 in an area with poor drainage,
a value for GR of 9.1 mpy taken from the maximum column of Table
6.0 could be used. Recalculating TF and TL would give values of 7.7 and
24.7 years respectively.
Example 2

ECDA direct examinations on a 30 x 0.375 X52 gas pipeline with an

MAOP of 936 PSIG revealed a worst case corrosion area 1 long with a
maximum depth of 290 mils. What is the remaining life of the ECDA
region?
1.

In accordance with Section 6.2.2 of NACE RP 0502, the maximum

remaining flaw size is assumed to be the same as the most severe
indication excavated (1 inches long x 0.290 inches deep).

2.

Using the modified ASME B31G equation, the calculated failure

pressure (FP) of the pitted area is 1474 PSIG.

3.

Calculate Yield Pressure (YP) using the Barlow formula:

YP =

4.

2 SMYS t 2 52000 0.375

=
= 1300 PSIG
OD
30

Calculate Failure Pressure Ratio (FPR), MAOP Ratio (MPR) and

Safety Margin (SM):
FPR =

FP 1474
=
= 1.134
YP 1300

MPR =

MAOP 936
=
= 0.720
YP
1300

SM = FPR MPR = 1.134 0.720 = 0.414

75

5.

The corrosion growth rate (GR) is assumed to be the default value

of 16 mpy = 0.016 inches/year. The time until failure is calculated
as follows:
TF = C SM

t
GR

TF = 0.85 0.414
6.

The time until leakage (TL) for a 290 mil pit in 0.375 wall pipe at
the same corrosion rate (16 mpy) is calculated as follows:
TL =

7.

6.2

0.375
= 8.2 Years
.0160

0.375 0.290
= 5.3 Years
.0160

The remaining life of the pipeline in the ECDA region is taken as

the lesser of the calculated values in steps 5 and 6 above. In this
example, remaining life would be the time until leakage occurs
(5.3 years).

Defining the Re-Assessment Interval

The re-assessment interval for the ECDA region shall be estimated as one half of
the remaining life as determined in the previous section. Note that this interval
may be further limited by the requirements in ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8.
For US Pipeline professionals, the re-assessment interval cannot exceed the
maximum values in Table 14 below, which is from the IMP rule (DOT 192.939).
Table 14 Maximum Allowable Reassessment Intervals
Pipeline Operating Stress
Level

Maximum
Reassessment Interval

At or above 50% SMYS

10 Years

At or above 30% but less

than 50% SMYS

15 Years

Less Than 30% SMYS

20 Years

In addition, U.S. regulations also require that whenever reassessment

intervals are determined to be greater than 7 years, confirmatory direct
76

assessment (CDA) must be conducted at least every 7 years prior to full

re-assessment at the end of the interval. For example, if a remaining life
of 36 years is determined from the previous steps for a pipeline operating
at less than 30% SMYS, the re-assessment interval would be 18 years. As
a minimum, confirmatory direct assessment (CDA) would need to be
conducted on the ECDA region in years seven and fourteen of the
eighteen-year interval. In year 18, full re-assessment is required, using
ECDA, inline inspection or hydrostatic testing.
6.3

Post-Assessment Steps

ECDA must be continuously assessed and improved through successive

applications. As a final check, it is necessary to validate the ECDA process after
the re-inspection interval has been determined.
6.3.1

Additional Direct Examinations

In order to validate the process, at least one additional direct examination

selected at a random location shall be conducted as part of the postassessment phase.
For initial ECDA applications at least two additional direct examinations
are required for process validation.
The two additional direct
examinations shall be conducted at random locations. One of the locations
shall be at a randomly selected scheduled indication (or monitored if no
scheduled remain). The second shall be in an area where no indication
was found.
If conditions that are more severe than determined during the ECDA
process are found in the validation digs, it may be necessary to reevaluate
the ECDA process, since the most severe indications should have already
been investigated during the direct examination phase. The re-assessment
may also need to be reconsidered.
If conditions are less severe, or no coating / corrosion damage is found,
the process can be considered validated.
6.3.2

Measuring the Effectiveness of the ECDA Process

NACE RP-0502, Section 6.4, and the U.S. DOT require that measures be
defined and monitored to determine the long-term effectiveness of the
ECDA process. The following items are examples of measures, which can
be tracked for each segment where ECDA is used as an assessment
method:

77

6.4

Number of reclassifications that occur during ECDA. A

significant increase in the number of indications reclassified would
indicate that the classification criteria may be unreliable and
should be reviewed.

Number of excavations made to investigate potential problems.

An increase would indicate that more aggressive monitoring is
advisable.

Total number of miles of pipeline subjected to multiple indirect

inspections. An increase indicates that more aggressive monitoring
would be advisable.

Mileage inspected by each individual indirect inspection

method. This measure will be used to determine which methods
prove to be most effective.

Frequency at which immediate and scheduled indications

arise.
A reduction in this frequency indicates improved
management of corrosion.

Extent and severity of corrosion found during direct

examinations. A decrease indicates a reduction in the impact of
corrosion on the structural integrity of the pipeline.

Frequency at which CP anomalies occur. A decrease indicates

better management of the CP system.

Feedback

Feedback is an essential element of the ECDA process, and is necessary in order

to continuously improve the process. The results from any activities or review of
data should be part of the continuous improvement process. The goal is to know
more and more about the system, and the continuous improvement process will
help refine this knowledge, such that pipeline integrity can be maintained.
Several activities listed in NACE RP 0502-2002, Section 6.5.2, which are part of
the continuous improvement feedback system, are listed below:

Identification and classification of indirect inspection results

Data collection from direct examinations

Remaining strength analysis

Root cause analysis

78

7.0

Remediation activities

In-process evaluations

Direct examinations used for process validation

Criteria for monitoring long-term ECDA effectiveness

Scheduled monitoring and period reassessments

Record Keeping Documenting the ECDA Program and Integrity Management

Record keeping is an essential part of the pipeline integrity management process. All
ECDA activities must be considered subject to audit by any authority, which has
jurisdiction over pipeline integrity management. NACE RP 0502 provides guidelines for
the data, which should be recorded. The U.S. DOT requires the pipeline operators to
retain this information throughout the useful life of the pipeline. It is important to
maintain the records in a well-organized manner, which makes information readily
retrievable and easy to understand.
Upon completion of the ECDA process, all relevant information from each of the four
steps should be collected and compiled into a single document (final report), which
clearly demonstrates that the requirements of NACE RP 0502 have been met. It may be
convenient to combine the ECDA activities for more than one region into a single
document depending on the number of regions and the volume of data required to be
included. This section provides guidelines for necessary information required to
document each of the four steps of the ECDA process.

7.1

Pre-Assessment Documentation

As a minimum, the following information is required for documentation of the

pre-assessment step:

All data elements collected for the segment to be evaluated and the data
sources should be summarized within this section. (See Section 3.2 for
details of the required data elements.) A narrative should be included to
summarize the findings and point out any unusual conditions encountered
during the data collection process, or any essential data, which may be
missing.

Methods and procedures used to integrate the data collected to determine

when indirect inspection tools can and cannot be used should be described
in this section. The feasibility of using ECDA to assess the integrity of the
pipeline(s) in question should be discussed here.
79

7.2

Methods and procedures used to select the indirect inspection tools should
be documented. Include a discussion of the limitations of the inspection
tools, which demonstrates why the tools selected are the most appropriate
for use within the region(s).

The characteristics and boundaries of the ECDA regions and the indirect
inspection tools used in each region should be included in this section.
The document should clearly indicate on what basis the boundaries of the
ECDA region(s) were chosen. It is recommended to include schematic
diagrams similar to Figures 3 and 4 in NACE RP 0502-2002 (Figure 5 of
this document).

Indirect Inspection Documentation

All indirect inspection actions need to be recorded. As a minimum, the following

activities should be documented.

The geographical coordinates as determined by GPS should be included to

document the ECDA region boundaries. The boundaries should also be
tied to physical references from the pipeline alignment sheets.

The dates and weather conditions under which the inspections were
conducted should be recorded and indicated on the inspection reports.

Inspection results at sufficient resolution to identify the location of each

indication should be included in graphical format whenever possible. If
data is not recorded in a continuous nature throughout the region, a
description of the conditions between the locations of indications should
be included. For example, if there are casings, river or stream crossings or
other special features, which cause a break in continuity of the data within
the region, this information should be included in the indirect inspection
survey reports.

The method used for aligning data from the indirect inspections and
expected errors for each inspection tool should be included. Graphical
overlays or stack charts are effective techniques used to compare and align
the data.

Tables similar to Table 3 in NACE RP 0502-2002 (Table 11 in this

document) should be included which clearly identify the criteria for
determination of the classification (minor, moderate or severe) and
prioritization for each inspection tool. It should be noted that the criteria
may vary for different ECDA regions. This section should also include
provision for using more conservative classification criteria for initial
ECDA applications.
80

7.3

Direct Examination Documentation

All direct examination actions should be recorded.

elements are as follows:

Some of the important

A table similar to Table 4 in NACE RP 0502-2002 (Table 12 in this

document) should be included, as it clearly identifies the criteria used to
determine whether indications or groups of indications are classified as
immediate, scheduled or monitored. This section should also include
provision for using more conservative classification criteria for initial
ECDA applications.

Data collected before and after excavation (See Table 5.1 in Chapter 5).
Forms for recording data at ECDA excavations should include these
elements as a minimum. Copies of the completed forms should be
included in the report.

All corrosion areas should be well documented with photographs.

Tracings are also a common means of documenting corrosion information.
Remaining strength calculations should be included in the report for any
corrosion anomalies discovered.

If corrosion is found at an excavation, all relevant data should be

examined to determine if there are locations with similar environmental
conditions within the ECDA region, which may warrant examination.

The data used to estimate corrosion growth rates is an essential data

element used for remaining life calculations in the post-assessment step.
All relevant data collected should be documented in this section.

Every effort should be made to determine the root cause of corrosion

damage discovered during the direct examination phase. If the root cause
is determined, the root cause and its method of determination must be
recorded in the final report.

A section should be included which describes any recommended

mitigative activities required as a result of the root cause analysis. For
example, the root cause may be inadequate CP throughout a specific
length of pipeline. The recommended mitigative action could be the
installation of an additional ground bed at a specific location to remedy the
situation.

Complete descriptions and justification for any reprioritizations, which

may have resulted from analysis of any of the above, need to be included
in this section.
81

7.4

Post Assessment Documentation

As a minimum, the following elements should be documented as part of the postassessment:

8.0

A section detailing the remaining life calculation shall be included in the

final report. The criteria for determining the maximum remaining flaw
size and the corrosion growth rate should be clearly defined. Proper
referencing or technical justification for any equations used for the
remaining life calculation will need to be included.

The reassessment interval shall be clearly defined. Generally, this will be

one half of the remaining life as calculated in the previous section, but
may be shorter if the calculation results in longer than the maximum
allowable interval.

The results of post-assessment excavations and direct examinations should

be included in this section. All documentation required for direct
examinations will need to be included. This section should clearly state
whether or not the post-assessment direct examinations validate the
process and on what basis.

The criteria and metrics used to assess the ECDA effectiveness and the
results of the assessment should be included in this section. Examples of
metrics are included in section 6 of this document.

This section should include instances where feedback from ECDA

activities has been used to improve the process. One example of an
activity providing feedback would be the direct examinations required for
process validation. If the direct examination resulted in discovery of more
severe corrosion than anticipated, it may be necessary to review the
effectiveness of the indirect inspection tools chosen or revise the
classification criteria.

References
o
o
o
o

NACE RP-0502-2002 (Standard Recommended Practice Pipeline External

Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology)
NACE RP0102-2002 (Standard Recommended Practice In-Line Inspection of
Pipelines)
API 1163 (This is a proposed standard on in-line inspections. Committees are
writing and reviewing the text, and it has not yet been formally titled or released).
ASME B 31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and
other Liquids, (New York, NY: ASME).

82

o
o

ASME B 31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, (New York,
NY: ASME).
ASME B31.8S Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines (Supplement to
ASME B31.8), (New York, NY: ASME).

83

9.0

Attachment A: Overview of ILI for Confirming Pipeline Integrity

In-Line Inspections (ILI) consists of running an inspection vehicle through a pipeline,

such that the location, size, and depth of defects can be measured. The integrity of the
pipeline and maximum allowable operating pressure can be determined from these
measurements
The inspection vehicles may be free swimming, i.e. propelled by the fluids (gas)
passing through the pipeline, or they may be tethered and pulled through the pipeline.
The vehicles are frequently called smart pigs.
References
o
o

NACE RP0102-2002 (Standard Recommended Practice In-Line Inspection of

Pipelines
API 1163 (This is a proposed standard on in-line inspections. Committees are
writing and reviewing the text, and it has not yet been formally titled or released).

In-Line Inspections (ILI)

There are two major types of In-Line Inspection (ILI) technology

o
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Figure 32
o
Ultrasonic (UT) Figure 33
MFL tools use strong magnets to establish a magnetic field through the ferrous
metal pipelines; the sensors detect fluctuations in the magnetic fields, which
indicate the location of possible corrosion
o
MFL tools can be used to assess liquid or gas filled pipelines
o
They can detect internal or external corrosion
Ultrasonic pigs have a series of ultrasonic transducers around the circumference
of the tool. Each transducer sends sound waves through a liquid couplant, and
inspects a portion of the pipewall.
o
UT tools require a liquid couplant to be between the transducer and the
pipewall.
o
UT tools can be used to inspect gas filled lines, provided the UT tool is
sandwiched between two pigs that maintains a liquid envelope Figure
34.
Numerous sensors around the circumference of MFL or UT inspection vehicles
are used to determine the circumferential orientation of any indication. The axial
location is determined by odometer wheels, which run along the interior of the
pipeline.
Following the running of an ILI pig, the data is downloaded and evaluated. A
section along the pipeline will be excavated, and measurements of the remaining
wall thickness of at least one defect will be used to calibrate ILI measurements.

84

There are numerous pigs available for specialty analyses, such as quantifying
dents. The in-line inspection vendors and service companies will post their
newest developments on their web pages.

Normal Magnetic Lines in Steel

Magnetic Lines Distorted by an External Defect

Figure 32 Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Technology in Pipelines

Transducer

Transducer

UT Signal
from
Transducer

Reflected
UT from
Defect

Figure 33 Ultrasonic (UT) for In-Line Inspections of Pipelines

Figure 34 Encapsulate Ultrasonic Pig to Maintain Couplant

Items and Costs Associated with Conducting In-Line Inspections

Pipelines must be configured for running ILI vehicles

o
Uniform Diameter through Pipeline
o
Pipeline valves should be full conduit valves, which allow pigs to pass
o
Must be able to pass through all combinations of bends and turns
(typically require minimum 3R bends)
Pigging requires a launcher and receiver at the beginning and end of the pipeline
o
These can be permanent installations or they can be temporary
installations.
o
Ensure size and length of the launchers and receivers are sufficient to
accommodate the inspection vehicle

85

If pig cannot pass through a line unimpeded, there can be major expenses in
reconfiguring pipeline or adding a launcher and receiver and the necessary bypass
piping. The pipeline would also be out of service during the reconfiguration.
Prior to running an In-Line Inspection pig, the pipeline must be thoroughly
cleaned, or proven to be clean. This can be done on-line, and may require the
running of numerous cleaning pigs. There will be labor expenses for the cleaning
pig runs, as well as the cost for the pigs.
There may be significant mobilization fees for bringing the ILI pigs to the work
site.

Strengths of In-Line Inspections

Common practice for assessing integrity of liquid filled or gas pipelines

o
Determines the position (axial and circumferential) along pipelines
o
Determines approximate dimensions for the length, width, and depth of
internal or external defects
This is a non-destructive inspection technique
This is a comparatively fast method to identify potential defects on pipelines
It may be possible to compare results between successive runs through the same
pipeline and estimate approximate corrosion rates.

Weaknesses of In-Line Inspections

Must thoroughly clean pipeline before running inspection vehicle

o
Any solids (oxides, scale, etc.) within pipeline may jam odometer wheels,
such that position information can be lost
o
If pipeline has not been thoroughly cleaned, it may be necessary for an
incremental cleaning program, wherein a series of cleaning pigs traverse
the pipeline, each successive pig having increased ability to remove
debris. This ensures manageable quantities of debris would be removed
on any particular pigging run.
UT pigs require liquid couplant between transducer and pipewall; That restricts
use of UT pigs in gas filled lines, unless pig trains can be used to encapsulate a
UT pig (Figure 33)
May need to regulate flow through pipeline to ensure ILI travel speeds are within
specs for collecting valid data
It will typically require at least one excavation and direct examination of the
pipeline to compare ILI results with actual remaining wall thickness, using a
caliper to measure the depth of any external defects and a UT meter for wall
thickness measurements. These measurements are typically used to calibrate the
ILI data.

86

10.0

Attachment B: Overview of Pressure Tests for Confirming Pipeline Integrity

Hydrostatic pressure testing typically follows new construction, but can be used to
demonstrate the integrity of existing pipelines. By placing the pipeline under the test
pressure, any existing defects greater than a critical size, will fail and leak. Successful
completion of this test demonstrates the pipeline has no defects greater than the critical
size for the operating conditions.
References
o
o

ASME B 31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and

other Liquids, (New York, NY: ASME).
ASME B 31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, (New York,
NY: ASME).

Hydrostatic Pressure Testing to Demonstrate Pipeline Integrity

A pipeline is filled with liquid (typically water for cost reasons) and pressurized
until the hoop stress reaches a specified value.
The pressure must be maintained for a predetermined period of time to
successfully complete the test.
Only a minor change in pressure is allowed to compensate for changes in
temperature of the fluid.
All leaks must be repaired, and the hydrotest repeated until successfully
completed.
Hydrotest water should be disposed of properly.

Items and Costs Associated with Hydrotesting

May need to weld caps onto section of pipe being tested, and remove them after
successful completion of the test
Will need source or supply of hydrotest fluids. This may require pumps and
hoses or tanker trucks to transfer the fluids, depending upon volumes
If fluids are not clean and clear, it may be necessary to set up settling tanks and
filter the hydrotest fluids before entering the sections to be tested
It may be necessary to add oxygen scavengers, corrosion inhibitors, and biocides
to the hydrotest fluids, unless the fluids will be completely removed, immediately
following completion of pressure testing. There are expenses for the cost of the
chemicals, as well as the labor for injecting the chemicals into the hydrostatic test
fluids.
If chemicals are added to the hydrostatic test fluids, the fluids cannot be returned
to public body of water. There may be disposal expenses.

87

Strengths of hydrostatic pressure tests

Historically, well founded and accepted its been used for years
Typical practice for new construction to demonstrate the pipeline system is leakfree prior to going into service
May use for complicated piping networks

Weaknesses of Hydrostatic Pressure Tests

This is a destructive test methodology.

Takes pipeline to failure at location of defects, which are greater than critical size.
Hence, it would no longer be possible to sleeve what was a minor defect before
the pressure testing.
There is a potential localized environmental impact at point of rupture.
Any water left within pipeline after completing hydrostatic pressure testing can
cause corrosion unless it is treated or completely removed.
o
Water may contain oxygen or SRBs
o
If the water was chemically treated, it will not be permissible to discharge
the treated water into a public waterway.
Following the test, it may be necessary to displace the hydrotest water through the
pipeline. This may require the use of poly pigs and a batch of methanol, which
will mix with any remaining water and help it evaporate.
No information is provided regarding the location of sub-critical anomalies.
It requires an interruption in service and significant downtime to conduct
hydrostatic pressure tests.

88

11.0

Attachment C: Definitions of Corrosion Related Terms

The following definitions are from NACE International in Houston, Texas:

Active corrosion: The corrosion state at which corrosion is occurring without being
influenced or shielded by corrosion products, such as rust.
Aerobic: Containing oxygen.
Anaerobic: Lacking in oxygen.
Anchor pattern: Roughness of the pipe surface to facilitate adhesion of the coating.
Anomaly: An imperfection, defect, or critical defect present in the wall of the pipe or in
its coating.
Anode: The electrode of an electrochemical cell at which oxidation occurs. Electrons
flow away from the anode in the external circuit. Corrosion usually occurs and metal
ions enter the solution at the anode.
Brittle fracture: A rapid failure mechanism that occurs without significant plastic
deformation.
Brittle fracture limit: The maximum stress, strain, or load that may be applied prior to
onset of brittle fracture.
Calibration digs: Exploratory excavations, or bellholes, to determine the size or severity
of conditions at which a direct assessment evaluation has recorded a signal.
Cathode: The electrode of an electrochemical cell at which reduction is the principal
reaction. Electrons flow toward the cathode in the external circuit.
Cathodic disbondment: The destruction of adhesion between a coating and the coated
surface caused by products of a cathodic reaction.
Cathodic protection (CP): A technique to reduce the corrosion of a metal surface by
making that surface the cathode of an electrochemical cell.
Class location: A criterion for pipeline design set by the Code of Federal Regulations.
Class 1 is rural and Class 4 is heavily populated. A class location is based on the number
and type of buildings situated in an area that extends 200 m (220 yd) on either side of the
centerline of any continuous 1.6-km (1.0-mile) length of a pipeline.
Classify: To separate the cause of indications into one of three categories, namely,
anomalies, non relevant conditions, or pipeline components.

89

Close interval potential survey (CIPS): A method of measuring the potential between
the pipe and earth at regular intervals along the pipeline. Also called CIPS.
Coating disbondment: Separation of coating from the pipe surface.
Colony: Refers to the grouping of stress corrosion crackstypically stress corrosion
cracks occur in groups consisting of hundreds of thousands of cracks within a relatively
confined area.
Company, pipeline: The individual, partnership, corporation, or other entity that
operates a pipeline system.
Corrosion: The deterioration of a material, usually a metal, that results from a reaction
with its environment.
Cracking: Mechanical splitting into parts.
Critical defect: A defect that would fail an ASME B 31G analysis.
Critical flaw size: The dimensions (length and depth) of a flaw that would fail at a given
level of pressure or stress.
Data analysis: The process through which a signal is classified and characterized.
Defect: As used in this standard, an anomaly for which an analysis, such as ASME B
31G, would indicate that the pipe is approaching failure as the nominal hoop stress
approaches the SMYS of the pipe material.
Dent: A depression caused by mechanical means that produces a visible disturbance in
the curvature of the wall of the pipe or component without reducing the wall thickness.
Detect: To obtain a measurable signal from an anomaly by the direct assessment
process.
Detection limit: The largest anomaly that could be missed (not the smallest anomaly
that could be found) by an assessment process.
Diameter, outside: The specified external diameter (OD) of the pipe.
Direct assessment process: A process that combines indirect examinations and direct
examinations to assess the integrity of a pipeline.
Direct-current voltage gradient (DCVG): A method of measuring the change in
electrical current in the soil along and around a pipeline.

90

Direct examination: Inspections and measurements made at bellholes as part of the

direct assessment process.
Disbonded coating: Any loss of bond between the protective coating and a pipe as a
result of adhesive failure, chemical attack, mechanical damage, hydrogen concentrations,
etc. Disbonded coating may or may not be associated with a coating holiday.
Double submerged arc weld (DSAW): Weld using filler metal passes on the inside and
outside of the pipe.
Electric resistance weld (ERW): Weld formed by resistance heating of the two edges
of a pipe and then forcing them together to create a solid-state weld.
Electrolyte, undercoating: Water found between the disbonded coating and the pipe
surface.
Engineering assessment: A documented assessment of the performance of a structure
based on engineering principles and material properties.
Fatigue: The phenomenon leading to fracture of a material under repeated or fluctuating
stresses having a maximum value less than the tensile strength of the material.
Flash-welded pipe: Distinct type of ERW pipe, made from individually rolled plates
formed into cans before being welded.
Flash-welding: A welding process in which joining is produced by heat generated by the
passage of electrical current and the application of pressure between the two surfaces;
similar to electric resistance welding.
Fusion bonded epoxy (FBE): An inert coating applied to pipes to keep them from
corroding; FBE is shop-applied as a two-part powder, which, with the application of heat,
flows to cover the contours of the pipe surface, including welds.
General corrosion: This is a form of deterioration of a material/metal that is distributed
more or less uniformly over a surface.
Girth weld: Circumferential weld joining two sections of pipe.
Gouge: A surface imperfection caused by abrasion that reduces the wall thickness of a
pipe or component.
Heat-affected zone, weld: Metal, adjacent to a weld, whose microstructure and
mechanical properties have been altered by the heat of welding.

91

High-pH SCC (classical): Pipeline SCC that is associated with an electrolyte that has a
pH in the alkaline range, specifically greater than pH 9.3, and in which the cracking
follows an intergranular path and is often branched.
High-vapor-pressure (HVP) liquid: Hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon mixtures in the
liquid or quasi-liquid state with a vapor pressure in excess of 110 kPa abs (15.5 psia) at
38C (100F); the vapor pressure is heavier than air.
Holiday: A discontinuity in a protective coating that exposes unprotected surface to the
environment.
Hoop stress: Stress around the circumference of a pipe (i.e., perpendicular to the pipe
length) that results from internal pressure.
Hydrostatic retesting: Proof testing of sections of a pipeline by filling the line with
water and pressurizing it until the nominal hoop stresses in the pipe reach a specified
value.
Hydrostatic test: Pressure test of a pipe or pressure vessel using water or other media.
Imperfection: An anomaly in the pipe that does not result in pipe failure at pressures
below those that produce nominal hoop stresses equal to the SMYS of the pipe material.
In-line inspection (ILI): The inspection of a pipeline from the interior of the pipe using
an in-line inspection tool.
In-line inspection tool (ILI tool): The device or vehicle that uses a nondestructive
testing technique to inspect the pipeline from the inside.
Inspection, nondestructive: Inspection methods used to reveal imperfections, such as
radiography, ultrasonics, magnetics, etc., that do not involve disturbance, stressing, or
destruction of materials being inspected.
Inspection: (1) A direct examination of pipe. (2) The process of running an in-line
inspection tool.
Instant off pipe-to-soil potential survey: An above-ground survey technique used to
determine the electrical potential provided to the pipeline from the CP system.
Intergranular stress corrosion cracking:
cracking occurs along grain boundaries.

Stress corrosion cracking in which the

Investigative dig: An inspection of a section of pipeline whereby that section is

physically exposed to allow for a detailed examination of the pipeline surface, then
recoated and backfilled.

92

Joint: A single section of pipe that is welded to others to make up a pipeline. A joint of
pipe is often 12 m, 18 m, or 24 m (40 ft, 60 ft, or 80 ft) in length.
Leak: Product loss typically through a small opening, crack, or hole in a pipeline.
Low-pH SCC: Pipeline SCC associated with an electrolyte that has a pH in the neutral
range (pH 6-8); the reference to low-pH is simply used to differentiate it from the
high-pH SCC form, which is associated with a more alkaline water. The cracking in
this form of SCC is wide, non-branching, and follows a path across the grains of the steel
(i.e., transgranular).
Low-vapor-pressure (LVP) liquids: Hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon mixture in the
liquid or quasi-liquid state with a vapor pressure of 110 kPa abs (15.5 psia) or less at
38C (100F); multiphase fluids, or oilfield water; liquids whose vapor is lighter than air.
Magnetic flux leakage (MFL): An inspection method that uses a magnetic field to
locate anomalies.
Magnetic particle medium: A suspension of magnetic particles in conditioned water or
a light petroleum distillate used in the magnetic particle inspection technique.
Magnetic particle inspection (MPI): A nondestructive examination procedure for
locating surface flaws in steel using fine magnetic particles and magnetic fields.
Maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP): The maximum internal pressure
permitted during the operation of a pipeline as defined by the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Maximum operating pressure (MOP): The maximum internal pressure expected
during the operation of a pipeline, which cannot normally exceed the maximum
allowable operating pressure.
Mechanical damage: Any of a number of types of anomalies in pipe caused by the
application of an external force. Can include dents, gouges, and metal loss.
Metal loss: Any of a number of types of anomalies in pipe in which metal has been
removed from the pipe surface, usually due to corrosion or gouging.
Microstructure: Structure of metals and alloys as revealed after polishing and etching
them; hot-rolled steels usually consist of bands of ferrite (iron) and pearlite (carbon) but
may contain other microstructures such as martensite (hard brittle grains) or bainite (not
as hard or brittle as martensite).
Microbiologically induced or influenced corrosion (MIC): A type of corrosion that
results from certain microbes in the soil.

93

Mitigate: To take action directed to reduce or prevent the likelihood or consequence of

an event.
Monitoring: Periodic measurements made at selected locations along the pipeline.
Natural gas: Naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon gases and vapors found in
porous geologic formations beneath the earths surface, often in association with
petroleum; the more important gases are methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, and
hexane.
Nondestructive evaluation (NDE): The evaluation of results from nondestructive
testing methods or nondestructive testing techniques in order to detect, locate, measure,
and evaluate anomalies.
Nondestructive testing (NDT): The actual application of a nondestructive testing
method or a nondestructive testing technique.
Nondestructive testing method (NDT method): A particular method of nondestructive
testing, such as radiography, ultrasonics, magnetic testing, liquid penetrant, visual, leak
testing, eddy current, and acoustic emission.
Nondestructive testing technique (NDT technique): A specific way of utilizing a
particular nondestructive testing method that distinguishes it from other ways of applying
the same nondestructive testing method.
For example, magnetic testing is a
nondestructive testing method while magnetic flux leakage and magnetic particle
inspection are nondestructive testing techniques.
Similarly, ultrasonics is a
nondestructive testing method, while contact shear-wave ultrasonics and contact
compression-wave ultrasonics are nondestructive testing techniques.
Nonmetallic inclusion: A nonmetal or ceramic particle within a metal resulting from a
reaction of impurities or additive constituents, e.g., oxides, sulfides, or silicates.
Peen: To mechanically work the surface of a metal to impart a compressive residual
stress.
pH: The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity written as:

pH = -log10 (aH+)
where aH+ = hydrogen ion activity = the molar concentration of hydrogen ions multiplied
by the mean ion-activity coefficient.
Pig: A generic term signifying any independent, self-contained device, tool, or vehicle
that moves through the interior of the pipeline for inspecting, dimensioning, or cleaning
purposes.

94

Pigging: The procedure of running a pig through the pipeline.

Pig, inspection: See pig.
Pipe: As used in this standard, the steel pipe exclusive of protective coatings or
attachments that is used to transport natural gas.
Pipeline: That portion of the pipeline system between the compressor stations including
the pipe, protective coatings, cathodic protection system, field connections, valves, and
other appurtenances attached or connected to the pipe.
Pipeline current mapper: A method of measuring the electrical current in a pipe.
Pipeline segment: All the pipe within a particular portion of a system with the same
diameter and the same coating, e.g., a valve section, an individual pipeline, or a stationto-station segment.
Pipeline system: All portions of the physical facilities through which gas moves during
transportation including pipe, valves, and other appurtenances attached to the pipe, such
as compressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, delivery stations, holders, and
other fabricated assemblies. (See 49 Code of Federal Regulations 192).14
Localized pitting: Localized pitting is the deterioration of a metal surface, which is
confined to a point or small area, and appears like a cavity. Typically, the clearly
defined, isolated areas of metal loss are immediately adjacent to unaffected base metal
Polarization: The change from the open-circuit potential as a result of current across the
electrode/electrolyte interface.
Polyethylene tape coating: Polyethylene tape and adhesive used as a pipeline coating
system.
Population density survey: A survey conducted to establish the population density in
an area, e.g., adjacent to the pipeline.
Potential: A measure of the eletromotive force between two points, e.g., between the
pipe surface and the surrounding soil. Same as voltage.
Potential, pipe-to-soil: Potential difference or voltage existing between the pipe and its
environment.
Pressure: A measure of force per unit area.
R-STRENG: A computer program designed to calculate the residual strength or failure
pressure of corroded pipe.

95

Rupture: The instantaneous tearing or fracturing of pipe material causing large-scale

product loss and immediately impairing the operation of the pipeline.
Receiver: A pipeline facility used for removing a pig from a pressurized pipeline.
Residual stress: Stress present in an object, in the absence of any external loading,
which results from the previous manufacturing process, heat treatment, or mechanical
working of material.
Rupture, pipeline: A large-scale failure of a pipeline, as occurs when the flaw exceeds
the critical dimension to initiate longitudinal propagation; typically results in an
uncontrolled release of the fluid.
Seam weld: The longitudinal weld in pipe, which is made in the pipe mill.
Shielding: The effect of preventing cathodic protection from reaching the pipe surface
under disbonded coating; occurs for coatings or soils with high dielectric strength.
Signal: Any measured response from an indirect examination above the normal baseline
signal.
Significant SCC: An SCC colony is assessed to be significant if the deepest crack, in
a series of interacting cracks, is greater than 10% of wall thickness and the total
interacting length of the cracks is equal to or greater than 75% of the critical crack length
of a 50% through-wall crack at a stress level of 110% of SMYS.
Soil model: A model or tool that predicts SCC susceptibility based on a database of soil
characteristics and excavation information.
Specified minimum yield strength or stress (SMYS): A required strength level that the
measured yield stress of a pipe material must exceed, which is a function of pipe grade.
The measured yield stress is the tensile stress required to produce a total elongation of
0.5% of a gauge length as determined by an extensometer during a tensile test.
Stray current: Current through paths other than the intended circuit.
Stress: Tensile or compressive force per unit area in the pipe wall as a result of the loads
applied to the structure.
Stress corrosion cracking (SCC): Brittle cracking caused by the conjoint action of a
corrosive environment in combination with tensile stress.
Temperature, ambient: The temperature of the surrounding medium in which piping is
situated or a device is operated.
Tensile stress: Stress that elongates the material.

96

Tenting: A tent-shaped void formed along the longitudinal seam-weld reinforcement in

a pipe when the external coating is not in continuous intimate contact with the pipe and
weld surfaces.
Testing: See hydrostatic retesting.
Tool: A generic term signifying any type of instrumented tool or pig.
Transgranular: Crack growth or crack path that is through or across the grains of a
metal.
Valve section: A section of pipeline that lies between mainline valves.
Voltage: A measure of the electromotive force between two points, e.g., between the
pipe surface and the surrounding soil.
Wall thickness, nominal: The specified wall thickness of the pipe.

97

12.0

Attachment D: Questionnaire for Collecting Data to Be Used in Pre-Assessment

98

Pipeline Data Form

Construction Related Data
Pipeline:
Pipeline Segment in HCA:
Method for Identifying HCAs:
Pipeline Diameter: If multiple diameters, describe each.
Pipe Manufacturer and date of Fabrication.

Type of Pipe:

Seamless

ERW (and Year)

Lap Welded

Pipeline Material Specification, including Grade and Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS):
Nominal Wall Thickness:
Date of Construction of Pipeline:
Where are the original Construction Records (Including Inspection records) stored/archived?
Construction Techniques:
External Coating on Pipeline? Shop or Field Applied?
Internal Coating on Pipeline? Shop or Field Applied?

Were the Joints coated?

External Coating

Internal Coating

Are there Electrical Isolation Points on the Pipeline?

Any Concerns Related to SCC associated with Welding? If So, describe concerns. If NOT, describe why its not a concern.
Describe the Padding and Backfill Material:
What is the Depth of Cover?
What are the Terrain and Soil types?
Are there any Geological Hazards along the Pipeline?
Design Pressure:
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (Describe basis for any reductions in MAOP)
Original Hydrostatic Pressure Test: (Date and Pressure)
How was the pipeline Dried, following the Original Hydrostatic Pressure test?

99

Describe Valves within the Pipeline: (Location, Type, Size)

Are there any Pipeline Valves, which have Reduced Diameters?
Does Pipeline have Pig Launcher and Receivers?
What are the Minimum Pipeline Bends/Elbows?
Are there Combinations of Bends, which can Restrict Passage of Pigs?
Are there Bars to Restrict Pig from Entering a Branch Pipeline?

Operations and Maintenance Related Data

Source of Natural Gas: (If Multiple Sources, Identify Each).
What is Maximum Pressure and Temperature of Gas Source?
What is the Nominal and Maximum Volume of Gas Transported?
Nominal Composition/Specifications for Gas: (Also, Dew Point for any Water Vapor)
Does Pipeline contain Drips or Low Spots, which collect Liquids? If so, How frequently is the Liquid Drained?
Describe the composition of these liquids, i.e., Hydrocarbon Condensates or Water.
What is the Likelihood of Any Water Ingress or Condensation?

Are positions along the Pipeline Marked above Ground?

Are there Security barriers, such as Fences or Locks, to restrict access?
Are there protective barriers to help protect integrity of pipeline (e.g., concrete slab above buried pipe)?
Is there any known Third Party Damage to Pipeline?
Are pipelines included within a One-Call System program?
Are there public education programs to enhance third-party awareness of the pipeline operations?

How Frequently is Pipeline Corridors Checked for Evidence of Leaks (Leak Patrols)?
What Method is Used? (e.g., flame ionization, etc.)
Where is the Records Kept/Retained?
What have the Leak Patrol Records Shown?
What is the Follow-up to any Indications? (e.g., Are work orders generated?)

100

How Frequently is the Pipeline Valves Inspected or Serviced?

Where are the records kept/stored?
Summarize the Findings:

Does the Pipeline have Cathodic Protection?

Yes

No

If Yes, Describe System

Date of Installation (e.g., during original construction?)

Are there bonds to any adjacent pipelines? If so, identify the adjacent pipelines.
How Frequently are checks conducted at the Test Stations? Where are the records kept?
Have the CP systems been Functional since the original construction?
Have the voltages always been sufficient to meet the NACE RP 0169 requirements (>0.850 mV)?
Do the Test Stations include CP Coupons?

When were previous surveys of pipelines CP/Coatings conducted (i.e., dates)?

What methods/techniques were employed? (Close Interval Surveys. Etc.) Who provided the Services?
Were there sections of the pipelines that could NOT be assessed? (e.g., inside a cased crossing?)
If so, list these locations. If a cased crossing, is the casing electrically insulated from the pipeline?
Summarize the findings from each of the Reports:
Where are the original reports/survey records kept?
What Remedial Actions were required and Completed? Where are the records to Document these Actions?

Have sources of electrical interferences, which could affect the functionality of CP systems, been identified and corrected?
Are adjacent pipelines bonded together as part of the CP programs?

Have the pipelines ever been cleaned, using pigs?

If yes, Approximately what volumes of Liquids and solids were removed? Please characterize.
Describe the frequency of cleaning Pig runs. What specific types of cleaning pigs are used?
Is there any corrosion monitoring instrumentation/coupons for the pipeline?
Are there corrosion coupons or electronic probes to monitor possible internal corrosion? If yes, what are the historical Corrosion rates?
Are there any corrosion coupons or electronic probes at the test stations? If yes, what are the External Corrosion rates?

101

Has there been any monitoring for microbial populations?

Yes

No

If yes, what were the results?

Where are the reports filed?

Are or have corrosion inhibitors been injected into the gas transmission pipeline?
Does any upstream producer or Pipeline Transmission Company inject any corrosion inhibitor?
If yes, what is the product, and what is the injection rate?

Yes

Have there been any pipeline leaks?

No

If so, where did the leaks occur? What was the root cause?
What remedial actions were taken?

Yes

Have there been any pipeline excavations?

No

If yes, what was the location of the excavation? When was it conducted?
What are the results of the direct examinations? Where are the records archived? Describe data related to:

Pipe to Soil Potentials

Condition of External Coating

UT Measurements of Remaining Wall Thickness

Depth of any External Pitting

Was Coating Replaced? With What?

Characterize Deposits

Photo Documentation

What is the present Operator Training and Qualifications Program?

Assessing the Integrity of the Pipeline

Who are Ultimate Users of Transported Natural Gas? (e.g., Hospitals, Cogeneration Power Units, Critical Industries)
Can Consumers supply of Gas be Temporarily Disrupted for conducting hydrostatic pressure tests or for installing temporary or

permanent launchers and receivers?

Yes
No
If NO, Provide an Explanation regarding the need for Continuous Operations.

Have there been any hydrostatic pressure tests of this pipeline subsequent to construction?
If so, When was the test conducted? Describe Test Conditions and Results.

102

Has the pipeline ever been inspected, using In-Line tools, i.e., smart pigs?

If so, What type of tool?

MFL

UT

Yes

No

Which vendor supplied the In-Line tool?

When was the Inspection conducted?

Where are the records and reports kept?
Summarize the findings for each successive inspection run, including any Remedial Activities, which were required.

Have there been any previous External Corrosion Direct Assessments within this particular HCA?
Have there been any previous Internal Corrosion Direct Assessments within this particular HCA?
Have there been any previous Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessments within this particular HCA?

Have there been repairs or replacements of pipeline segments within this HCA?
Have the Coatings been Repaired or Replaced? If so, When?
Have Repairs or Upgrades of the CP systems been made? If so, When? Describe.
Has it ever been necessary to relocate any segment of this pipeline within the HCA? If so, Describe.
Have Repairs been required on any above grade sections of the pipeline within the HCA? If so, Describe the basis for the requirement.
Have Repairs been Required for any Cased Piping? If so, Describe.

Are the Right-of-Ways Easily Accessible for Surveys or Excavations?

Are the pipelines covered by grass/dirt, or are they covered by concrete/asphalt?
If the topsoil is covered by concrete or asphalt pavement, how thick is that layer? (This helps identify which surveys can be conducted).

103

Primary Threats and Recommended Integrity Assessment Methodology

What are Primary Threats to Pipeline Integrity for this particular HCA?

Provide Basis for this Conclusion

Recommended Integrity Assessment Methodology

Direct Assessment

In-Line Inspection

Hydrostatic Pressure Test

Provide Basis for this Conclusion; Identify Limitations with Alternate Techniques to Assess Pipeline Integrity

Date of Baseline Inspection for a HCA along Pipeline

Date of Next Scheduled Confirmatory Direct Assessment
Date of Next Complete Direct Assessment

Annual Reviews to Identify Changes, which may affect HCAs and Pipeline Integrity
Date

Reviewer

Comments:

Date

Reviewer

Comments:

Date

Reviewer

Comments:

Date

Reviewer

Comments:

104

13.0

Attachment E: Direct Examination Worksheets

The attached direct examination worksheets were built upon worksheets used by the
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. The forms allow for recording more data than may
be the minimums required for integrity assessments. Pipeline companies should use
those portions of the forms, which are relevant to their operations.

105

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

Name/Signature:

Title:

Location:

Station:

Pipe Dia:
Material Grade:

Page:

Operating Pressures:

in.

Water Present?
Pumping Required?

Yes
Yes

No

of _____

Date:

Nominal Thickness:

I. Visual Examination of Excavation

Normal
psi

Maximum
psi

GPS Coordinates:
N.
E.

Water first encountered ________ Ft.

from top of Excavation

Ft.

Depth of Cover:

No

Unusual Conditions at Site:

Odors:

Backfill Color:

Description of Padding, Bedding and Backfill:

Other: _______________
Round / Angular

Backfill:______________________________________________

Padding:

Bedding:

Dimensions of Excavation (Ft.):

__________ Length x ___________ Width x __________ Height
Length of Exposed Pipe:
__________ Ft.
Length of Coating Removal:

Length of Final Coating Repair:

__________ Ft.

II. Tape Examination Approx %

Damaged Tape (check if
applies)

_________ Ft.

Remarks and Location

_____________________________________

Perforated/Ripped/Torn
Tape?
Yes

Type of Tape:

Damaged Area

Adhesive Description:

No

Bulges in the Tape?

Yes

Did the tape seams or weld areas display

high rate of bulging?

No

Yes
Disbonded Tape?
Yes

Tape Delaminate?
Yes

No

Any Repair Patches?

Yes

No
No

Moisture Under Tape?

No

Yes

106

No

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

Location:

Station:
Page: 2 of ______

II Tape Examination (Continued)

Location and Measurement:

Show the condition of the tape coating and or any unusual conditions of other coatings. Sketch all
areas of disbondment, tearing, bulging, holidays and other tape defects.

Station

Station:________________

Upstream Limit

Downstream Limit

360o

270o

180o

(bottom)

FLOW

90o

0o
(top)

Comments:

107

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

Location:

Page: 3

of _______

III. Examination of Coatings:

Type of Existing Coating

Color: Is Coating Color Uniform?

Yes

No

Coating A:

Average Coating Thickness D.F.T. _________ mils

Coating B:

Did Coating peel off w/tape?

Coating C:

Comments: (ie, Top, Bottom, etc.)

Type of Coating Damage:

Approx. % of Total Area with this Damage

Yes

No

Location of damage (oclock and station)

Non-corrosion Disbondment:

_________________________________

Blistered due to Corrosion:

_________________________________

Are there any Black Deposits Under the Coating?

Yes

Station

No Approx. % of the Site: _________________________

Station:________________
Downstream Limit

Upstream Limit
360o

270o

180o

(bottom)

FLOW

90o

0o
(top)

Comments:

0
Pipe Temperature
F
Description of most extensive corrosion damage area. Include lowest remaining wall reading/survey coordinates/grid location:

108

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

Location:

Page: 4 of ______

IV.
Visual Examination Location and
Measurement:

Show the location, depth, and extent of external corrosion, after the tape
wrap and / or coatings have been removed

Station

Station:________________

Upstream Limit
360

Downstream Limit

270o

180o

(bottom)

FLOW

90o

0o
(top)

Describe Abrasive Blasting Operation Used to Remove Corrosion Products,Coatings, and Debris from exterior of pipeline (Type
of Grit, Pressures)

Describe Results, including measure of wall thickness and deepest pit within each cluster. Also provide spacing between
clusters, such that areas can be treated independently, or as areas of continuous corrosion. Also describe locations of any grids,
which were established for measurement of the depth of pits in close proximity, including the names of the file that contain the
data, and where they will be kept. Provide Reference to photographs.

Other Comments:

109

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

V. Soil / Water Resistivity & pH Data

Page: 5 of ______

pH of water from excavation:

pH of water under tape:

pH of water from FBE blisters:

Water Resistivity Method: (-cm)

Single Probe

Soil Box

Other

-cm
-cm
-cm
Soil Resistivity Method:
Temperature of soil/backfill at time of test:
Single Probe
Soil Box
Other
Native:
Bedding:
Native Soil Resistivities (-cm)
Bedding Soil Resistivities (Soil in contact with pipe) (-cm)
Upstream:
Downstream:
Upstream:
Downstream:
-cm
-cm:
-cm
-cm:
Wenner 4 Pin Method:
Location of Pins:
Depth (Ft.)
(-cm)
10
5
2.5
Comments:

VI. Pipe-to-Soil Potential

Reference Cell Position

At Edge of Exposed Pipe - Upstream

At Edge of Exposed Pipe - Downstream

Top of Excavation

-mV

-mV

12:00

-mV

-mV

3:00

-mV

-mV

6:00

-mV

-mV

9:00

-mV

-mV

VII.

Anode Groundbed Examination If Applicable:

Anode Sample:

Anode Connections:
Station: ___________________

Yes
Good:

Yes

No

Anode Exposed:

Yes

No

Damaged Anodes:

Yes

No

Anode Corrosion:

No

Location:

110

None to Minimal:
Significant Loss:
Several Spots:
Other:

_____
_____
_____
_____

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

Girth Weld Inspection
Girth Weld Station:

Page: 6 of _____
Girth Weld #

Weld: Crown Height (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heat Affected Zone (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Classify Corrosion in Weld Cap:
Classify Corrosion in the HAZ:

Describe corrosion associated with Weld Cap?

(e.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized)

Describe corrosion associated with the HAZ?

(e.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized)

Was there any indication of sharp edge or undercut corrosion or other unusual conditions?

Girth Weld Station:

Girth Weld #

Weld: Crown Height (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heat Affected Zone (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Classification of Corrosion in Weld Cap: (Using Comparators) Classification of Corrosion in the HAZ: (Using Comparators)

Describe corrosion associated with Weld Cap?

(E.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized)

Describe corrosion associated with the HAZ?

(E.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized)

Was there any indication of sharp edge or undercut corrosion or other unusual conditions?

111

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

IX. Pipeline Repairs

Page: 7 of _____
N/A

PIPE INSTALLED
Total Feet of Pipe Added (Tie-in weld to Tie-in Weld)

Size
in.

Wall Thick.
in.

Grade

Seam Type

Manufacturer

N/A

PIPE RETIRED
Total Feet of Pipe Retired

Size
in.

Wall Thick.
in.

Grade

Seam Type

Manufacturer

N/A

FABRICATED BENDS
Total Feet of Bends Added

Bend Radius

Size
Ft.

in.

Wall Thick.
In.

Grade

Seam Type

Manufacturer

PIPE DETAIL
Reference Point Description (Nearest Road, Fence, Valve, Stn. No)
_______________________________________________________________

Station Number of Reference Point

_________________________________________________

Distance from Reference Point to nearest end of :

Tie-in
End of Coating
Sleeve
Valve

Direction from Reference Point (along pipeline)

North
South
East
West

Other _________

Station

Station:________________

Upstream Limit
360

Downstream Limit

270o

180o

(bottom)

FLOW

90o

0o
(top)

112

DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS

IX. Pipeline Repairs (Continued) Pipe Dia:

Sleeve Information

Nominal:

Surface Prep:

Page 8 of ____
Operating Pressure:

MAOP:

Material Grade:
Additional Comments:

Ind #

Ind#

Description

NDT Method

Location

Repair Method

Size

Post Repair RWT

113

AWT

RWT

Disposition

Disposition Final Inspection