Out-of-straightness detection,

assessment, and monitoring, using

the SAAM pipeline-inspection tool
The Pipeline Pigging, Integrity Assessment,
and Repair Conference
Holiday Inn Select Hotel
Houston, Texas
February 6-8, 2001
Organized by
Clarion Technical Conferences
and
Pipes & Pipelines International
and supported by the
Pigging Products & Services Association
by Gordon Short
1
and Patrick Ogunjimi
2
1
RST Edinburgh, UK
2
Brass Exploration, Isleworth, UK
3 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
Proceedings of the 2001 Pipeline Pigging, Integrity Assessment, and Repair Conference, Houston, USA.
Copyright 2001 by Clarion Technical Conferences, Pipes & Pipelines International and the author(s). All
rights reserved. This document may not be reproduced in any form without permission from the copyright owners.
Out-of-straightness detection, assessment,
and monitoring, using the SAAM
pipeline-inspection tool
R
ST PROJECTS Ltds SAAM Pipeline Inspection tool represents the state of the art in
low cost pipeline inspection and monitoring technology. The tooling has been
designed for use on-board standard bidi and cup pigs. The SAAM tooling has a number
of capabilities, however; one of the most important uses is in the detection, assessment
and monitoring of pipeline Out-Of-Straightness problems. This paper examines how
SAAM can be used to detect pipeline Out-Of-Straightness and presents results of
experimental work carried out in test facilities. Consideration is also given to field
applications with a case study of the 12" Oil Export Pipeline in the Abana Field offshore
Nigeria, owned and operated by Moni Pulo Limited and Brass Exploration, being
presented.
Introduction
Determining the presence and severity of pipeline Out-Of-Straightness (OOS) has been a
problem which has challenged pipeline engineers since the very first lines were laid. Even the early
Roman engineers were concerned with pipeline straightness. These engineers invested consider-
able time and effort in carrying out detailed route surveys to ensure that the natural gradients of
the land were used to best effect when transporting water under gravity from the well to the user.
Obviously the slightest OOS during the construction could compromise this aim.
In modern hydrocarbon pipelines the presence of pipeline OOS presents a more dramatic
problem. An oil or gas pipeline with a severe change in bend radius can have abnormally high
bending stresses which can cause the pipeline to exceed its elastic limit, potentially leading to
4 Out-of-straightness detection
failure. When combined with other factors (such as torsion and internal pressure), it represents an
extremely difficult problem for the engineer to assess. Clearly when making this assessment
knowing the precise shape the pipeline takes is of vital importance.
The shape of a pipeline is a complex interaction between the pipeline itself (its physical properties
such as stiffness) and its surrounding environment. For example, a pipeline which crosses a region
of soft sand, will acquire a very different profile to a similar pipeline which is laid on firm soil. Having
a precise knowledge of pipeline position is often not sufficient to determine its integrity. Having
information on pipeline motion and changes in profile is of equal or greater importance.
The consequences of failing to detect and rectify pipeline OOS can be dramatic. On its own
excessive bending can lead to failure with the pipeline exceeding its elastic limit. Unsupported
pipelines can be a hazard for others, potentially leading to accidents [1].
It is clear that detecting, assessing and monitoring the shape of a pipeline can be of critical
importance to ensuring that a line is operated safely.
This paper presents the results of work carried out by RST Projects Limited into pipeline OOS.
It focuses on the use of the SAAM pipeline inspection tool, presenting examples of its actual use in
the field. It should be noted that the theory underlying how OOS detection tools (such as SAAM)
operate could become an exercise in applied mathematics. This paper, however, does not dwell
heavily on the theory but rather chooses to focus on its applications.
Background
Many pipelines suffer from OOS. For example, buried onshore pipelines which cross areas of
subsidence can become unsupported. From the surface this may not be obvious. However, when the
pipeline is excavated the extent of the problem can be found. Similarly, subsea pipelines can suffer
from what is known as scouring. This results in the material beneath the pipeline being progres-
sively washed away. When this happens the pipeline can again be left unsupported, forming a free-
span. This can become a local stress point for the pipeline. It can also be a source of other problems,
such as trawl gear becoming snagged under the pipe [1].
A further factor which leads to pipeline OOS has been the development of high temperature
(usually smaller diameter) pipelines. These lines operate at elevated temperatures and can suffer
from excessive thermal expansion. This means that they can pop upwards and form what is known
as an Upheaval Buckle. Severe buckles can result in permanent plastic deformation of the pipeline.
OOS can be a very real problem for the pipeline operator. On occasions the first indication of the
problem may be a pipeline failure or an incident involving a third party. As a result the ability to
detect, assess and monitor pipeline OOS is seen as being an important part of the pipeline asset
management process.
Existing technology
Traditional approaches to determining pipeline OOS can be described as being hit or miss. Many
pipeline operators rely solely on the use of external visual inspections (or the equivalent for subsea
pipelines) to determine when a pipeline OOS problem exists.
External surveys only provide limited information on the profile of the pipeline. Visual surveys,
for example, can provide no meaningful information for a pipeline which is buried. They can also be
very time consuming and there may also be question marks over their accuracy. This often means
that a pipeline operator who finds an OOS problem then looks for an alternative means of profiling
the feature. ROVs and Side Scan Sonars can go some way to providing this information for subsea
pipelines, but their resolution and accuracy are often inadequate for subsequent data analysis
requirements.
A second approach involves the use of Internal tools. The approach here has been to use gyro
systems, or Inertial Navigation Units [2,3]. These instruments tend to be borrowed from the military
or aviation industries. The acceleration data produced is double integrated to give a profile. This
5 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
double integration is a major source of systematic error, and over the distances of interest, this
procedure can easily swamp the signal of interest. This means that the calculated profile needs to
be compared with known reference points at regular intervals along the length of pipeline. Probably
the best known example of this type of tool is the BJ Geopig.
It is reasonable to conclude that existing OOS technology can be difficult and relatively expensive
to deploy and often their accuracy brings into question the validity of any post survey data analysis
used to assess the condition of a pipeline.
The SAAM approach
The approach developed by RST is fundamentally different to other existing techniques. The
SAAM tool is a package which can be fitted to existing pipeline cleaning and gauging pigs, rather
than being a special standalone inspection pig (Figure 1). This means that any existing cleaning or
gauging pig can be used to acquire OOS data.
Over the past 2 years there have been a number of papers published by RST which details the
theory of the SAAM inspection tool [4,5,6,7]. In summary it can be described as:
using the dynamic response of a cleaning or gauging pig to the presence of a feature within
a pipeline as a measure of that feature
In effect the behaviour of a cleaning pig is monitored and changes used to identify features
present within the pipeline. This can be extended to give a complete inspection capability (Figure
2).
The above principle can be applied to the presence of pipeline OOS. This is possible because
SAAM monitors changes in the angular position of the pig. Sensors onboard the unit provide pitch
and angular velocity data. To date only systems with the pitch sensors have been used operationally
to give 2 dimensional profiling of a pipeline. It is this 2-D approach which is discussed in detail in
this paper. The use of the angular velocity sensors (gyros) is a new innovation recently introduced
by RST to provide a basic 3-D capability and is discussed only briefly towards the end of the paper.
Although not intended to be a justification of the mathematical basis of SAAM, it is important
to appreciate in general terms the underlying theory. To do this, consider a pipeline in 2 dimensions
with a change in the vertical position of the line (Figure 3). When a pig travels along this line its
change in vertical position (y) can be expressed by the following equation:
y = V sin t (1)
where V is the velocity of the pig along the axis of the pipeline, q is the angle of pitch of the pig relative
to the horizontal and t is the interval in time. In fact this equation can be simplified as V can be
expressed as:
V = L/t (2)
where DL is the incremental distance travelled along the axis of the pipeline in the period t. Also,
where the angle of pitch is measured directly using a gravitational accelerometer then the sin value
in (1) can be directly replaced by the measured value from this instrument a. Substituting these
into (1) simplifies the expression to:
y = a L (3)
This is the governing equation used by RST in determining the vertical profile of a pipeline. A
simple numerical integration technique can then be used to give the shape of the feature.
In order to use this equation it is necessary to have the following data:
6 Out-of-straightness detection
1. The angle of pitch of the pig (a).
2. The distance travelled (L) between each data point.
The angle of pitch (a) is measured using a gravitational accelerometer. This is a device which is
in effect a membrane with a mass supported in the middle. When the pig tilts the mass exerts more
force on the membrane which then results in a change in the voltage. This change in voltage is then
a direct measure of the angle of pitch. The angle itself is automatically resolved into its gravitational
(vertical) component meaning that it is in fact the sinq value.
The second value used in (3) is the distance travelled in the incremental time t. t is set to equal
the sample rate used by the SAAM unit. Typically for SAAM L is of the order of 5-10cm. L is
actually calculated from the known distance between two points, such as girth welds, divided by the
sample rate of the tool.
Using these two values the localised vertical profile of the pipeline can be determined.
Sources of error
In common with other OOS tools the main limitation with SAAM is its accuracy. The are many
potential sources of error associated with this type of technology. The most common are discussed
below.
Pipe joint length
Standard pipe joints are specified at 12.2m (40ft). In reality a wide range of factors will combine
to give a spread of lengths covering a range of a metre or so. Typically this means that every pipe
joint can have an implicit error of the order of +/-0.5m, which equates to about 4% of the length.
Where this is not accounted for it will feed directly into an equivalent error in the generated vertical
profile. However, this error can be dramatically reduced using techniques developed by RST, where
differences in pipe spool length can be clearly identified. Furthermore, where a detailed pipe tally
is available (or can be obtained from field measurements) it can be effectively eliminated as a source
of error. It should be noted that an error in pipe joint length does NOT change the calculated
minimum bend radii as the error applies in proportion to both the vertical and horizontal distances.
Discussion of how SAAM detects girth welds and from this derives pig velocity and pipe joint length
is given in [4,5,6].
Pig attitude
Any change in the attitude of a pig travelling through an OOS feature will result in a significant
error in the measured profile. The most likely changes in pig attitude are pitch and rotation. Pitch
problems tend to be associated with the presence of in-line debris, such as wax. Where this is present
it tends to be found locally and only in certain types of pipelines. Where necessary it can be
minimised by pre-cleaning the line. The second type of attitude error is to do with pig rotation. As
it is not possible to position a SAAM unit in a pig body precisely co-linear with the axis of the pipeline,
then any rotation over a short distance of the line can give a signature similar to that of an OOS
problem. From RSTs experience this has never been observed and RST believes that if pig rotation
does occur in straight pipe sections then its period is far greater than that which would affect the
quality of a typical OOS feature. This is supported by the preliminary results of the 3-D SAAM tool,
discussed towards the end of the paper.
Impact loading
Any significant impact will be detected by the accelerometer used to measure the angle of tilt of
the pipeline. Impacts result from the pig coming into contact with some obstruction within the
pipeline. The severity of this impact will mainly depend upon on three factors, pig speed, size of the
obstruction and line diameter. Generally, the faster the pig, the smaller the diameter and the more
7 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
severe the obstruction, then the greater the measured impact. From experience it has been found
that in-line features such as girth welds will not normally cause an impact with a corresponding
change in linear velocity, but will instead show up as vibration [4,5]. However, where the pipeline
suffers from, for example a dent then this will be detected. Techniques have been developed by RST
for handling impacts.
Lateral pipe displacement
Probably the single most significant error associated with the 2-D SAAM method, is the impact
of any lateral displacement of the pipeline. In effect should the pipeline be offset at an angle to the
vertical then this will compromise the results of the survey. The accelerometer used to measure the
angle of tilt will only measure the vertical component. When this is combined with a rotation of the
pipeline it will under estimate the true change in alignment. The measured value understates the
true value by the Cosine of the angle of rotation. From experience RST has found that small rotations
of the order of 5 from the vertical do not generate any significant error, and up to 10 the results
are generally acceptable. Values greater than this have to be taken on a case by case basis. The error
which results causes the SAAM method to understate the minimum bend radii and overstate the
length of the feature, in effect making the feature longer and shallower.
In practice there is no easy way to determine from the SAAM data whether the pipeline OOS is
vertical or offset at some angle. Again, from experience it has been found possible to determine if
this has occurred by comparing the calculated SAAM horizontal distance over the length of a
feature, with true measured distances (say taken from a GPS). Where the SAAM distance is
significantly longer then this would suggest that the OOS feature is actually offset as some angle,
rather than being vertical. It is this limitation with the 2-D method that is one of the drivers behind
the development of the 3-D capability discussed later in this paper.
It should be noted that any change in horizontal direction of the pipeline that is not associated
with rotation, such as horizontal bend, will NOT directly effect the calculated vertical profile.
Reference points
The SAAM profiling technique relies upon having known local reference points (start and end
points) which relate the pipeline to the real world. In the case of the 2-D SAAM method accurate
vertical distances are required, whether these are above or below sea level. Where pipeline
movement is the main concern an agreed reference level can be taken and used for all subsequent
analysis and so changes in the pipeline shape will be clearly recognisable and consistent relative to
the chosen fixed point. In this case the need for accurate reference points can be avoided.
Drift and integration error
Measuring devices such as accelerometers and gyros are well know to suffer from drift. This can
be very significant if not understood and handled. The instrument used on SAAM has been selected
so that this has the minimum impact. Under test, this instrument has been shown to have a
negligible drift over a period of days (typical for a survey). It was also found that drift cannot be
measured over the time taken to transit typical OOS features. This is very important because the
process of integration compounds any drift error, and those detection methods that require a double
integration further exaggerate this problem. SAAM only requires a single integration. In addition
the time step Dt (which equates to the sample rate of the SAAM unit) has been selected by testing
to minimise this error. The combination of the selected instrument, the single integration process
and selected sample rate have all but eliminated drift and integration errors over typical OOS
features using SAAM.
8 Out-of-straightness detection
Validation
With any new measurement technique it is vital to validate and prove the methodology. The use
of SAAM to determine pipeline OOS is no different. The validation carried out by RST has taken 2
forms. Firstly, the use of loop tests and secondly, field trials.
Loop tests
RST has carried out extensive loop trials over the past 5 years. These trials have had a variety
of aims, from basic research purposes, to fault finding, through to specific OOS tests. In addition RST
has adopted a policy of loop testing all of its SAAM units prior to shipping them into the field. As
a result a very large database of information has been developed. At the time of writing this paper
RST has over 1400 sets of individual loop data. In the vast majority of cases the SAAM unit involved
has been deployed with the capability of measuring pipeline tilt and often they have been run
through test sections with a known change in vertical profile.
Analysis of this loop data has been carried out in order to assess and validate the capabilities of
the SAAM tooling at measuring pipeline OOS. An example of part of this assessment is shown on
Figure 4. In this case the test section of the flow loop is approximately 35m long with a change in
elevation of 1.45m. The start and end points are at the same elevation and the distance between the
pipe flanges is known. The data is taken from pigs with disks that had different amounts of wear.
In this case 37 loops of data from the one test are presented. All of the data were found to be within
+/-7.5cm of the known vertical value.
Field trials
Testing was carried out in pipelines within known OOS features. These pipelines were selected
on the basis of being relative stable with little or no pipeline movement expected. The results of these
trials confirmed the capabilities of SAAM. It was found that for all of the test cases the vertical OOS
could be classified within +/-0.09% of the horizontal distance travelled and that an accuracy of +/-
0.05% was achievable in 80% of the cases. This is comparable with other mapping tools [2,3].
It was also possible to compare some of the SAAM generated data with other data. An example
of this is given in Figure 5. This shows that there is a relatively good tie-in between the SAAM data
and that acquired from a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), and where there are significantly
divergences the error has subsequently been tracked down to limitations with the ROV data rather
than with SAAM.
Case study
Abana 12-in oil-export pipeline, Nigeria
So far the paper has concentrated on detailing the overall theory, testing and validation of the
SAAM measuring technique. This part of the paper now focuses on the application of the technology
with a case study of the Abana 12 Oil Export pipeline, offshore Nigeria being presented.
Field description
The Abana field is located in block OPL230 offshore Nigeria. Moni Pulo Limited, an indigenous
Nigeria oil company, is the majority interest holder in the Block. Brass Exploration is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Baker Hughes E & P Solutions and is technical partner to Moni Pulo Limited
on block OPL230.
Installed in 1998 the Abana Field comprises the Abana West Facility, Abana East Facility, the
Abana Water Injection Facility and a 12 oil export pipeline. The layout of the field is shown on
Figure 6, and can be summarised as follows. Abana West is connected to Abana East by an 8 oil
9 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
flowline, an 8 test line, a 4 gas flowline and a 4test flowline. Production is delivered through these
lines to Abana East. The product is treated at Abana East on a floating production facility and is then
exported via a 12, 40km oil pipeline to a third party platform. Injection water is supplied to the
Water Injection Facility from Abana East via an 8" line.
In partnership with Moni Pulo Ltd, Brass Exploration were responsible for the construction of
the facilities and are now responsible for day to day operation of the field including the 12 oil export
pipeline.
Application
Of particular concern to Brass Exploration is the stability of the 12 oil export pipeline from field.
Clearly, this is of strategic importance as it is the sole export route. When constructed the line was
trenched and covered with an unknown quantity of silt. The stability of this line is complicated by
the fact that it was laid in an estuary effectively at right angles to the current. The currents in this
estuary are known to be very strong, ranging from 3 4 knots in the spring, to 8 10 knots during
the rainy season. It was feared that these currents could cause erosion of the seabed around the
pipeline causing it to change shape. In particular it was felt that the line may become unsupported
in places, causing it to sag and become over-stressed. Brass wanted to know what the status of the
line was post construction, whether there were any locations where the pipeline was bending
excessively and then to monitor its shape at regular intervals to assess whether it was in fact
changing.
Proposed solution
RST were approach by Brass with a view of using SAAM as the routine monitoring tool. After
much discussion it was concluded that SAAM could be used to monitor both the 8 flowline and the
main 12 oil export pipeline. At that time RST could only operate SAAM down to 10 and as such
the unit needed to be re-engineered in order to be deployed successfully in the 8 lines. This aspect
of the development is discussed elsewhere [8].
Schedule
The project KOd in August 1998 and the development of the special SAAM system was completed
during December of the same year. RST supplied the SAAM unit, carrier pigs for the 8 and 12 lines
and operator training for Brass personnel. In common with all of RSTs systems, the system supplied
to Brass was designed to be deployed within a cleaning pig. The pig supplied was designed by RST,
but was in effect a standard BIDI type pig (Figure 7) with its body cavity specially modified in order
to house the SAAM system. The first survey using the tooling was carried out during July 1999.
Survey
The results of the first survey provided good quality data to benchmark the line. From this a
number of features were identified as being significant and were profiled. It was found that none
of these exceed the expected limits for features in a pipeline of this size. For each the profile, location
and minimum radius of curvature were determined. An example is given in Figure 8. In this case
the raw data (angle of tilt and vibration) are shown along with the profiled feature. In addition
composite strip maps were produced over the entire length of the line. These were developed using
specified reference points along the length of the line.
The second survey was carried out on the 13th October 1999. It had been timed to follow the rainy
season in order that the effects of this could be evaluated. The SAAM unit was again deployed on
board the supplied BIDI cleaning pig. The results of the survey were very revealing. Firstly it was
evident that large sections of the line were very different to the previous survey. When analysed this
indicated that the pipeline had moved, much in the same way that sand waves can cause pipelines
to move in the desert.
Of more interest was the behaviour of the pipeline at the locations that had previously been found
to give the most severe changes in pipeline inclination. Surprisingly, it was found that these
10 Out-of-straightness detection
locations had changed least. Indeed on closer examination it was found that some of these showed
no significant change from the benchmarked profile. This was both re-assuring as it confirmed that
the most severe bend radii were not getting worse, whilst confusing in that it seemed to be counter
to what would have been expected. On reflection it is now believed that these more severe features
are probably related to some real feature on the seabed, such as a rock. These act as pivot causing
the pipeline shape to change severely. However, at the same time they are believed to act as an
anchor, in that they are not moving and hence the shape of the pipeline in their vicinity is also
effectively anchored. Analysis of the data from a third survey is expected to be completed early in
Q1 2001, which it is hoped will provide yet further information on these features.
Other applications
The case study presented has discussed only one of the potential applications for the SAAM OOS
technology. However, there are clearly more depending upon the design and operation of different
pipeline systems. One proven use of the technology has been in the detection and assessment of
Upheaval Buckles. This is primarily a problem with some subsea flowlines. Upheaval Buckles come
about as a result of temperature effects causing a pipeline to change length (grow). With the line
fixed at either end then the growth in its length will have to be relieved in some other way. Often
this occurs where there is a slight vertical kink in the line. This will act as the source of the buckle
with the pipeline tending to pop upwards.
These resulting buckles do represent significant problems for the pipeline operator. The
deformation of the pipeline can in worst cases become plastic. In other cases they can interfere with
third parties (fishing boats trawl gear). SAAM can be deployed to inspect lines for Upheaval Buckles.
Figure 9 shows the result of one such survey. In this case a buckle was found and sized in a buried
subsea flowline. It is interesting to note that the feature exhibits the expected classic shape, with
slight downwards dips at either end.
A further potential application for the technology is in the detection of pipeline free-spans.
Although the technology cannot provide confirmation of a void around the pipeline, it can be used
as part of a monitoring programme to determine if the shape of a pipeline has changed (sagged)
providing evidence that the pipeline may have become un-supported.
Future developments
3-D capability
The paper so far has presented work associated with the 2-D SAAM OOS method. This has shown
the capabilities of the developed technology, discussed potential benefits and illustrated some the
applications. However, clearly there are limitations with this approach and it is apparent that a 3-
D version would be advantageous. There are many different reasons for this, including:
1. The elimination of lateral displacement errors associated with the 2-D method.
2. Provide unambiguous evidence of the presence and size of in-line horizontal and
inclined bends.
3. Allow lateral buckling problems to be handled.
4. Provide a means of develop 3-D models of inaccessible pipeline features.
The ability to develop this 3-D method has been a long stated goal for RST. To achieve this RST
has been working on combining data from angular velocity sensors (gyros) with the existing vertical
profiling data. This is being done as part of a new upgraded version of the SAAM tooling.
This work has recently reached a significant milestone with the completion of a series of loop tests
using the first prototype tool. Details of this new SAAM unit are not being released that this stage,
11 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
however, the tooling will have all of the capabilities of current SAAM tooling, along with new sensors
and substantial upgrades in terms of range and size (miniaturisation).
At the time of writing this paper it is too early to draw many firm conclusions regarding the 3-
D capability of this new tooling. However, some preliminary results are included for interest. These
results have been acquired using 10" bidi pigs, deployed in RSTs in-house pigging test facility. The
facility is arranged in a never-ending form with 4 off 5D, 90 horizontal bends, located two at either
end of the facility, details of which are given in Figure 10.
The test pigs have been deployed at a range of velocities between 0.7m/s and 1.1m/s. Some of the
preliminary results of these tests are presented in Figure 11. This figure gives output from 2 angular
velocity sensors mounted at right angles to each other. A total of 70 laps around the test loops have
been included. These show a regular response as the pig passes around each bend. When resolved
it would appear that the measured response is consistent with a change in angular position of 90.
The results of this are shown in Figure 11.
What is also interesting here is that as a result of the way the sensors have been arranged they
can also detect the effective rotation of the pig in the test loop. It would appear that the pig rotates
on average about 9 per bend. This can be seen as the overall wave like response of the data over
the 70 laps of the test. Also, the data would appear to show that there is effectively no rotation in
the straight pipe sections. On closer examination it can be seen that the pig rotation is consistent,
but slightly quicker in approximately half of laps when compared with the rest. It is believed that
this is caused by the pig being slightly out of balance with a small added mass on one side, which
causes it to rotate when acted on by gravity.
At this stage no formal assessment has been carried out on the 3-D prototype, however, the
preliminary results are encouraging. It is anticipated that this assessment will be carried out during
Q1 2001 with the first field trials likely to follow soon thereafter.
Pipeline mapping
The SAAM 2-D method was not developed with the intention of providing an overall mapping
capability. Instead it was intended to give localised information for pipeline OOS purposes only.
However, even with this data it has been found to be possible, given certain supporting information
to develop basic strip maps. Clearly the development of the 3-D capability would be a major step
forward with an obvious extension being the development of overall pipeline routing maps.
Furthermore, it should also be possible to link the internal data acquired from the SAAM unit with
data from pipeline markers, hence giving another means of cross-referencing locations along the
length of the line.
Conclusions
Detecting, assessing and monitoring OOS is clearly an important aspect of pipeline mainte-
nance. The development of a pipeline cleaning pig based internal inspection tool, with the benefits
associated with ease of deployment and minimal risk, is believed to represent a major contribution
towards the successful management of OOS problems. The SAAM Pipeline Inspection tool is
believed to be the first commercially available product specifically design for use on-board standard
cleaning pigs.
SAAM has been shown to offer a viable, cost effective alternative to traditional methods of
determining OOS. Details of the 2-D method have been presented and discussed. Of particular
importance has been the approach to error handling and the accuracy of the tooling. A clear
understanding has been presented regarding how these errors arise and how they are managed
within acceptable limits.
The case study presented and the other applications discussed, have illustrated the different
roles in which SAAM can be used. It has been shown how it can be used to acquire pipeline OOS data
associated with a known problem, such as an Upheaval Buckle, thereby enabling the client to make
informed decisions regarding the remedial strategy. The Abana case study, on the other hand, has
shown how the tooling can be incorporated within an on-going maintenance programme in order to
12 Out-of-straightness detection
locate and monitor parts of the pipeline which may be changing and becoming increasingly out of
straight.
The development of a 3-D version of the tooling is becoming an ever increasing possibility with
the successful completion of the first series of tests using the most recent version of SAAM. These
tests have shown that the tooling can be used to determine changes in the horizontal plane and work
is progressing in developing the limits of this technology in order that it can be released during 2001.
In conclusion, the detection of pipeline OOS using the SAAM Pipeline Inspection tool is one of
the most proven uses of the technology. The ability to perform this role using a cleaning pig as the
carrier tool is seen as being a major step forward. Combined its relatively modest cost, the use of
SAAM as part of a routine condition monitoring programme for pipeline OOS detection, assessment
and monitoring has now been shown to be a reality.
References
1 Marine Accident Investigation Board. Report of Inspectors Inquiry into the Loss of the Fishing Vessel
Westhaven AH190. April 1998.
2 Kirkvik R, Clouston S, Czyz Dr. J; Pipeline Out of Straightness and Depth of Burial Measurements Using
an Inertial Geometry Intelligent Pig; OPT 1999.
3 Czyz Dr. J, Falk J; The Use of the Geopig for Prevention of Pipeline Failures in Environmentally Sensitive
Areas; Pipeline Pigging Integrity Assessment and Repair Conference, Houston February 2000.
4 Short G, Hak J, Smith Dr. G; Low Cost Smart Pigging Comes of Age; Pipeline Integrity Assessment and
Repair Conference, Houston February 2000.
5 Short G, Fletcher M; The Role of Smart Cleaning Pigs In Pipeline Rehabilitation and Repair; Pipeline
Rehabilitation and Maintenance Conference, Prague September 2000.
6 Russell D, Snodgrass B, Smith Dr. G.; The Smart Acquisition Analysis Module for Pipeline Inspection;
ISOPE 2000, Seattle, May 2000.
7 Smith Dr. G, Short G, Russell D, Owens E; Testing Instrumentation for the Identification of Wax In
Hydrocarbon Pipelines; ISOPE 2000, Seattle, May 2000.
8 Russell D, Ogunjimi P; Measurement of Pig Behaviour Provides Low Cost Solution to Monitoring Pipeline
Geometry; Oil and Gas Journal, May 2000.
13 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
Figure 1. SAAM in a bidi pig.
Figure 2-SAAM" Inspection CapabiIity
14 Out-of-straightness detection
Figure 3-PipeIine Schematic
Figure 4-Test Loop Data
15 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
Figure 5-Comparison Between SAAM" and ROV Data
Figure 6-Abana FieId Layout
16 Out-of-straightness detection
Figure 8-Raw Data and Generated ProfiIe
Figure 7-Abana 12" Carrier Pig
17 The Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Conference, February, 2001
Figure 9-ProfiIe of an UpheavaI BuckIe
Figure 10-Photo of RST Test FaciIity
18 Out-of-straightness detection
Figure 11-3D Data (70 Laps)
Figure 12-HorizontaI DispIacement Around RST Test Rig