UKOPA RAWG /10/002

United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

UKOPA Dent Management Strategy

1 Background

Pipelines are thin shell structures which are susceptible to geometric distortions and dents during
handling, construction, and operation. These dents and distortions, particularly when associated
with other forms of damage such as gouges, or which are associated with welds, can lead to failure
of the pipeline. Consequently, rigorous assessment is required. The identification of the damage
mechanism which has caused the dent, the severity of the dent and an assessment of the potential
for failure is essential. The severity of the dent and the assessment of the impact on pipeline
integrity is dependent upon its location, the size and shape of the dent, the line pipe mechanical
properties, and the applied static and cyclic stresses.

The majority of pipeline in-line inspections (ILI) are carried out using the magnetic flux leakage
(MFL) inspection tools. These tools are capable of identifying and locating dents in the pipeline,
but most cannot currently size the dent. As a result, large numbers of dent features are reported by
ILI companies for further consideration by the operator with little or no information for
identifying any critical features which require investigation.

Geometric ILI tools are capable of sizing the dent. The combination of data from MFL and
geometric ILI can provide the data required for quantitative dent assessment using a range of
published criteria. However, where dents have been identified by MFL ILI only, there may be a
time delay before geometric inspection can be scheduled. A Dent Management Strategy is
therefore required which uses all available information and highlights critical actions.

2 Requirements for a Dent Assessment Methodology

The UKOPA Dent Management Strategy is being developed by the UKOPA RAWG using data,
direction and advice from members who have supplied inspection data and investigation and
assessment information.

The purpose of the Dent Management Strategy is to:

i) Allow prioritisation of dent features detected by ILI for investigation.

ii) Take account of dent location, depth and strain, association with other damage and
association with welds.
iii) Assess dents under static and cyclic loading.

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
1
 UKOPA RAWG /10/002
United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

iv) Consider whether the dent features were present at commissioning, and the operational
service to date and future operating requirements of the pipeline.

The work to develop a UKOPA Dent Management Strategy is being progressed in a short,
medium term and long term work programme. This document summarises the results of the short
term work programme, which is complete.

3 Technical Basis

The technical basis supporting the development of the UKOPA Dent Management Strategy is
drawn from the references listed.

4 Prioritisation of Dent Features Reported by ILI for Investigation

A methodology for the prioritisation of dent features detected by ILI in the form of a list giving
the numerical order for investigation, ie a dig list, is required for use by the pipeline operator.

Algorithms for prioritising dent features detected by ILI and generating a dig list for investigation
have been developed as follows:-

i) Dent Prioritisation Algorithm 1 MFL/UT Inspection Figure 1

This algorithm allows screening of MFL or UT ILI results to identify the number
of features to be investigated.
The algorithm may be used to identify dent features for immediate investigation
and repair and to justify the need for geometric inspection.

ii) Dent Prioritisation Algorithm 2 MFL + Geometric Inspection Figure 2

This algorithm allows quantified assessment and screening of dent features for
investigation where both MFL and geometric inspection data is available.

The algorithms have been subject to challenge and review by UKOPA members who have
experience of the management of pipelines with identified dent features. The algorithms are
currently based on either a depth limit or a strain limit being satisfied. Generally, the depth limit
will be applied as high resolution caliper data required to determine strain may not be available in
all cases. It is therefore recommended that a strain assessment is conducted where possible, where
this is not possible then the assessment should be based on dent depth. This recommendation is
under review as part of a continuing programme of work to determine the validity and
practicability of the Dent Management Strategy.

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
2
 UKOPA RAWG /10/002
United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

The rationale used in the algorithms is outlined below, together with additional guidance agreed as
part of the challenge and review process.

4.1 Rationale

Dents which cannot be assessed and sentenced using published criteria must be investigated and
repaired.

Dents which can be assessed and sentenced using published quantified criteria are prioritised
according to i) association with welds or metal loss and ii) circumferential location.

Definitions applied are detailed below.

The numerical ranking to be applied to the prioritisation for investigation of dent features detected
using MFL/UT ILI is given in Table 1.
The numerical ranking to be applied to the prioritisation for investigation and assessment of dent
features detected using MFL/UT and geometric ILI is given in Table 2.

The dent assessment criteria for gas and liquid pipelines are given in Table 3, and the dent
assessment procedure using these criteria is given in Figure 3.

It is recommended that in applying the dent prioritisation ranking, assessment criteria and
assessment procedure, pipeline operators should record any additional pipeline specific data taken
into account and document the justification for any additional decisions made.

4.2 Definitions

Dent - a depression which produces a gross disturbance in the curvature of

the pipe wall, caused by contact with a foreign body, resulting in
plastic deformation of the pipe wall.
Plain (or smooth) dent - a dent which causes a smooth change in the curvature of the pipe
wall, causing depression on external surface, with no metal loss, no
change of curvature at any adjacent seam or girth weld
Dent associated with weld - a dent changes curvature at seam or girth weld
Kinked dent - a dent which causes an abrupt change in the curvature of the pipe
wall. An abrupt change in curvature is defined as one where the

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
3

United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association
Unconstrained dent
Constrained dent
Spring back
Rerounding
Position
Table 1 Prioritisation Rationale MFL/UT Inspection
Description
Dent associated with metal
loss and weld, TOL
Dent associated metal loss
which is not corrosion, TOL
Dent associated with weld or
weld not visible, weld
toughness < 27J, TOL
Dent associated with weld or
weld not visible, weld
toughness 27J, TOL
Plain dent associated with
coating damage, TOL
Dent associated with metal
loss and weld, BOL
1
This definition is based on the guidance in the EPRG recommendations for the assessment of mechanical
damage[Error! Reference source not found.-Error! Reference source not found.].
RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology
V10 Final Stage 1
UKOPA RAWG /10/002
UKOPA/10/0051
radius of curvature (in any direction) of the sharpest part of the dent
is less than or equal to five times the wall thickness1.
a dent that is free to rebound elastically (spring back) when the
indenter is removed, and is free to reround as the internal pressure
varies.
a dent that is not free to rebound or reround, because the indenter is
not removed. A rock dent is an example of a constrained dent.
(also referred to as rebounding) the reduction in dent depth due to
the elastic unloading that occurs when the indenter is removed from
the pipe.
the change in dent depth under internal pressure.
Top of line (TOL)1 - 8 oclock to 4 oclock
Bottom of line (BOL)2 -4 oclock to 8 oclock
Notes:-
1 -TOL dents are usually assumed to be unconstrained
2 -BOL dents are usually assumed to be constrained
Priority for Additional guidance
Investigation
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric inspection
1
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric inspection
2
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric inspection
3
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric inspection
4
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric inspection
5
Check CIPS and DCVG data. Check for any
6
evidence of local ground movement, backfill
4

United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association
Description
Dent associated metal loss
which is not corrosion, BOL
Dent associated with weld or
weld not visible, weld
toughness < 27J, BOL
Dent associated with weld or
weld not visible, weld
toughness 27J, BOL
Plain dent associated with
coating damage, BOL
Plain Dent, no evidence of
coating damage, TOL
Plain Dent, no evidence of
coating damage, BOL
Table 2 Prioritisation Rationale MFL/UT + Geometric Inspection
Description
Dent associated with metal
loss and weld, TOL
Dent associated metal loss
which is not corrosion, TOL
Dent associated with weld or
weld not visible, weld
toughness < 27J, TOL
Dent associated with weld or
weld not visible, weld
toughness 27J, strain > 4%,
depth >2% OD, TOL
Plain dent, strain > 6%, depth
RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology
V10 Final Stage 1
UKOPA RAWG /10/002
UKOPA/10/0051
Priority for Additional guidance
Investigation
disturbance, and washout. If yes, reprioritise as
1.
Check CIPS and DCVG data. Check for any
7 evidence of local ground movement, backfill
disturbance, washout. If yes, reprioritise as 2.
Check CIPS and DCVG data. Check for any
evidence of local ground movement, backfill
8
disturbance, and washout. If yes, reprioritise as
3.
Check CIPS and DCVG data. Check for any
evidence of local ground movement, backfill
9
disturbance, and washout. If yes, reprioritise as
4.
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric
10
inspection
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric
11
inspection
Excavate, NDT, repair or geometric
12
inspection
Priority for Additional guidance
Investigation
Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
1 assessment)
Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
2 assessment)
Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
3 assessment)
Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
assessment)
4
5 Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
5
 UKOPA RAWG /10/002
United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

Description Priority for Additional guidance

Investigation
> 7% OD, TOL assessment)
Plain dent, strain 6%, depth Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
7% OD, fatigue life expired, 6 assessment)
TOL
Dent associated with metal Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
7
loss and weld, BOL assessment)
Dent associated metal loss Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
8
which is not corrosion, BOL assessment)
Dent associated with weld or Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
weld not visible, weld 9 assessment)
toughness <27J, BOL
Dent associated with weld or Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
weld not visible, weld assessment)
10
toughness 27J, strain > 4%,
depth > 2% OD, BOL
Plain dent, strain > 6%, depth Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
11
> 7% OD, BOL assessment)
Plain dent, strain 6%, depth Check CIPS and DCVG data. Check for any
7% OD, fatigue life expired, evidence of local ground movement, backfill
BOL 12 disturbance, and washout. If yes, reprioritise
as 6. Excavate, NDT, repair (or refer for
assessment)
Plain dent, strain 6%, depth No further
7% OD, fatigue life OK action

Table 3 Criteria applied to Assessment of Dents in Gas and Liquid Pipelines

Criterion Reference Source

1
Plain dent maximum depth 7% OD EPRG, PDAM

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
6
 UKOPA RAWG /10/002
United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

Plain dent strain maximum strain1 6% ASME B31.82

Dent associated with ductile3 weld 2% OD ASME B31.82
maximum depth1
Dent associated with ductile3 weld 4% ASME B31.82
maximum strain1
Dent associated with metal loss due to If corrosion 20% wt, treat as UKOPA Member
corrosion plain dent procedures4

Notes:-
1 Where both dent depth and depth strain are available, dent depth should be used to
prioritise dents.
2 ASME B31.8 addresses gas pipelines, integrity criteria are assumed to apply to all
products.
2 Ductile weld Charpy energy 27J (full size)
3 Corrosion limit is proposed based on that applied by a number of UKOPA member
companies and is being checked as part of the future work to develop the UKOPA
Dent Management Strategy. The accepted code limit is 12% wt depth.

5 Simple Dent Assessment Rules

The following rules apply to the assessment of dents in liquid and gas pipelines:-

Kinked dents (eg wrinkles) - repair

Static assessment of dents - depth/strain limits:-
Plain dents :- depth 7% OD and/or strain 6%1
Dents associated with welds: - depth 2% OD and/or strain 4%1, providing weld
toughness and quality are acceptable.

If pipeline is pressure cycled - assess dent location for associated damage:

TOL coating damage (DCVG/Pearson)

BOL disturbance, washout etc
BOL dents in rocky locations should be monitored not excavated
Dents associated with welds depth 2% OD and/or strain 4%1 acceptable if weld
toughness & quality are acceptable

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
7
 UKOPA RAWG /10/002
United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

In all cases the dent assessment should take account of the pipeline pressure at the time of the
inspection and the sizing accuracy of the inspection tool.

The minimum acceptable weld toughness is full size Charpy energy 27J.

Acceptable weld quality must meet the requirements of a recognised welding standard (eg BS
4515-1).

If there is no indication of associated damage, assess dent fatigue life using recommended
dent fatigue SN curve2.

New dent features identified between MFL/UT inspections should be investigated.

Notes :-
1 Where dent depth and dent strain measurements are available, the assessment should
be based on dent depth. Where measured dent depths up to the specified depth criteria
result in strains which exceed the strain criteria, a 25% increase in strain may be
applied to identify dents for investigation, NDT should be carried out on such dents
and the strain level reduced if crack indications are detected.
2 A dent fatigue SN curve based on the EPRG approach recommended in PDAM is
being developed.

6 Fatigue Assessment of Plain Dents

The fatigue assessment of plain dents is carried out using the EPRG formula as follows:-

Where:-
Nc = Predicted number of cycles to failure
U = UTS
2A = equivalent cyclic stress at R = 0, N/mm2
t = wall thickness
Ks = stress concentration factor

Ks is given by the equation:-

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
8
 UKOPA RAWG /10/002
United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

Where:-

Ho = dent depth at zero pressure

Hr = dent depth at pressure

NOTE:- PDAM recommends that a factor of 13.3 is applied to the calculated fatigue life to ensure
a 95% probability of lower bound prediction of test data.

An example of a pipeline dent fatigue SN curve is given in Figure 4. The SN curve is based on the
mean (rather than the lower bound) EPRG formula, and is shown for dents of depth 2.5%, 5%,
7.5% and 10% dent depths at varying wall thicknesses assuming a base stress cycle of 125N/mm2.
An approximate indication of the impact on fatigue life of plain dents is given in Table 4. This
table may be used to obtain a simple screening assessment of the impact of plain dents on pipeline
design fatigue life.

Table 4 Simple Assessment of Fatigue of Dented Pipelines

Fatigue life assessment

Plain dent depth
% dia
EPRG Mean EPRG Lower Bound
Similar to design life of 10% of design
2.5
undented pipeline life for undented pipeline
Reduced to 20% Reduced to 2%
5

Reduced to 10% Reduced to 1%

7.5

Reduced to 5% Reduced to 0.5%

10

It is normal practice to use the lower bound fatigue prediction. The effect of dents on pipeline
fatigue predictions indicated in Table 4 show that in most cases, this will result in very low fatigue
lives. Where the above screening assessment indicates the fatigue life is exceeded, a more detailed
dent fatigue assessment should be carried out or the dent feature should be investigated.

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
9
 UKOPA RAWG /10/002
United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators Association UKOPA/10/0051

Note - This approach is being considered using real pipeline data so that practical
recommendations can be made.

The above fatigue prediction methodology has been developed as an excel calculator (DENT
FATIGUE CALCULATION NOV 09) for use by UKOPA members.

7 References

1 Integrity Assessment of Construction Dents Subject to Fatigue Loading Report Prepared

for UKOPA. Dr J M Race, Newcastle University. May 2007

2 High Level Dent Assessment from ILI. M Dafea, T Swankie. Advantica1 Report 8498
November 2008.

3 The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual Report to the PDAM Joint Industry Project
May 2003. A Cosham, P Hopkins. Penspen Integrity.

4 Dent Assessment Based On In-Line Inspection Results. J M Race. Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Pipeline Rehabilitation and Maintenance, Manama, Bahrain :
GICC, 2002

5 DENT FATIGUE CALCULATION NOV 09 Excel file for UKOPA. R A McConnell.

Note:- Advantica is now Germanisher Lloyd Nobel Denton (GLND).

RAWG Dent Assessment Methodology

V10 Final Stage 1
10