Annex

$QQH[& C
(informative)
LQIRUPDWLYH

Estimating the Performance Specifications from a Comparison of Individual

(VWLPDWLQJWKH3HUIRUPDQFH6SHFLILFDWLRQVIURPD&RPSDULVRQRI,QGLYLGXDO
Validation Measurements
9DOLGDWLRQ0HDVXUHPHQWV
&
C.1 /HYHO9DOLGDWLRQ
Level1Validation
&
C.1.1 *HQHUDO
General

This level applies only to pipelines with the anomaly populations that represent low levels of risk (i.e. remaining risk
7KLVOHYHODSSOLHVRQO\WRSLSHOLQHVZLWKWKHDQRPDO\SRSXODWLRQVWKDWUHSUHVHQWORZOHYHOVRIULVNLHUHPDLQLQJULVN
after all repairs are executed). As an outcome of the Level 1 validation, the service provider-stated tool performance is
DIWHUDOOUHSDLUVDUHH[HFXWHG$VDQRXWFRPHRIWKH/HYHOYDOLGDWLRQWKHVHUYLFHSURYLGHUVWDWHGWRROSHUIRUPDQFHLV
accepted EXW
DFFHSWHG but QRW
not SURYHQ
proven QRU
nor GLVSXWHG2QO\
disputed. Only D
a YHU\
very OLPLWHG
limited QXPEHU
number RU
or QR
no validation measurements DUH
YDOLGDWLRQ PHDVXUHPHQWV are SHUIRUPHG
performed.
Therefore, the Level 1 validation is achieved on the basis of mostly process verification checks alone.
7KHUHIRUHWKH/HYHOYDOLGDWLRQLVDFKLHYHGRQWKHEDVLVRIPRVWO\SURFHVVYHULILFDWLRQFKHFNVDORQH

Verification is the process whereby the operator checks that all procedures in the planning, preparation, acquisition,
9HULILFDWLRQLVWKHSURFHVVZKHUHE\WKHRSHUDWRUFKHFNVWKDWDOOSURFHGXUHVLQWKHSODQQLQJSUHSDUDWLRQDFTXLVLWLRQ
and analysis of an |L| dataset were conducted in such a manner as to produce high-quality inspection results.
DQGDQDO\VLVRIDQ,/,GDWDVHWZHUHFRQGXFWHGLQVXFKDPDQQHUDVWRSURGXFHKLJKTXDOLW\LQVSHFWLRQUHVXOWV

In the event of any deciency, suboptimal condition or unplanned events, the operator shall assess the significance of
,QWKHHYHQWRIDQ\GHILFLHQF\VXERSWLPDOFRQGLWLRQRUXQSODQQHGHYHQWVWKHRSHUDWRUVKDOODVVHVVWKHVLJQLILFDQFHRI
the VLWXDWLRQ
WKH situation DQG
and DGGUHVV
address LW
it WR
to HQVXUH
ensure WKH
the LQWHJULW\
integrity RI
of WKH
the SLSHOLQH
pipeline. 7KLV
This PD\
may HQWDLO
entail HVFDODWLRQ to HLWKHU
escalation WR either /HYHO
Level 
2 RU
or
Level 3 validation efforts.
/HYHOYDOLGDWLRQHIIRUWV

&
C.1.2 3URFHGXUH
Procedure

Process verification is a systematic and consistent approach to ensure that all proper procedures were undertaken by
3URFHVVYHULILFDWLRQLVDV\VWHPDWLFDQGFRQVLVWHQWDSSURDFKWRHQVXUHWKDWDOOSURSHUSURFHGXUHVZHUHXQGHUWDNHQE\
the RSHUDWRU
WKH operator DQG
and ,/,
|L| VHUYLFH
service SURYLGHU
provider SULRU
prior WR
to, GXULQJ
during, DQG
and DIWHU
after WKH
the LQVSHFWLRQ
inspection. 7KH
The fundamental premise RI
IXQGDPHQWDO SUHPLVH of WKH
the
methodology is that high-quality |L| data are a consequence of technology, planning, and execution and analysis.
PHWKRGRORJ\LVWKDWKLJKTXDOLW\,/,GDWDDUHDFRQVHTXHQFHRIWHFKQRORJ\SODQQLQJDQGH[HFXWLRQDQGDQDO\VLV

Process YHULILFDWLRQ
3URFHVV verification FRQVLVWV
consists RI
of D
a SRLQW
10-point FKHFNOLVW
checklist VHH
(see WKH
the FKHFNOLVW
checklist DW
at the end RI
WKH HQG of WKLV
this DQQH[UHJDUGLQJ
annex) regarding various
YDULRXV
aspects of the tool plus a cumulative assessment. To conduct the validation check, the operator must check each of
DVSHFWVRIWKHWRROSOXVDFXPXODWLYHDVVHVVPHQW7RFRQGXFWWKHYDOLGDWLRQFKHFNWKHRSHUDWRUPXVWFKHFNHDFKRI
the procedures to ensure that they were properly conducted and if there were any deciencies in the procedures if
WKHSURFHGXUHVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH\ZHUHSURSHUO\FRQGXFWHGDQGLIWKHUHZHUHDQ\GHILFLHQFLHVLQWKHSURFHGXUHVLI
they had a signicant effect on the data. Finally if there are issues which have significant effect on the quality of the
WKH\KDGDVLJQLILFDQWHIIHFWRQWKHGDWD)LQDOO\LIWKHUHDUHLVVXHVZKLFKKDYHVLJQLILFDQWHIIHFWRQWKHTXDOLW\RIWKH
data, the operator shall state how those deficiencies will be managed.
GDWDWKHRSHUDWRUVKDOOVWDWHKRZWKRVHGHILFLHQFLHVZLOOEHPDQDJHG

&
C.1.3 3URFHVV9HULILFDWLRQ
Process Verification

Process verification VKDOOEHFRQGXFWHG

3URFHVVYHULILFDWLRQ shall be conducted for all inspections. The process verification
IRU DOOLQVSHFWLRQV7KHSURFHVV is summarized in the
YHULILFDWLRQLVVXPPDUL]HGLQ WKH following
IROORZLQJ
table. Details of each check are provided in the sections below.
WDEOH'HWDLOVRIHDFKFKHFNDUHSURYLGHGLQWKHVHFWLRQVEHORZ

If the process verification reveals any deciency in the planning, preparation, execution, or analysis of the inspection
,IWKHSURFHVVYHULILFDWLRQUHYHDOVDQ\GHILFLHQF\LQWKHSODQQLQJSUHSDUDWLRQH[HFXWLRQRUDQDO\VLVRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQ
process, the |ocation(s) [whether the |ocation(s) are limited to specific segment(s) or the whole pipeline] where the
SURFHVVWKHORFDWLRQV>ZKHWKHUWKHORFDWLRQVDUHOLPLWHGWRVSHFLILFVHJPHQWVRUWKHZKROHSLSHOLQH@ZKHUHWKH
quality of the data may be affected must be recorded and are considered again for the cumulative assessment. It is
TXDOLW\RIWKHGDWDPD\EHDIIHFWHGPXVWEHUHFRUGHGDQGDUHFRQVLGHUHGDJDLQIRUWKHFXPXODWLYHDVVHVVPHQW,WLV
incumbent on the service provider to notify the operator of all such potential degradation of data quality the service
LQFXPEHQWRQWKHVHUYLFHSURYLGHUWRQRWLI\WKHRSHUDWRURIDOOVXFKSRWHQWLDOGHJUDGDWLRQRIGDWDTXDOLW\WKHVHUYLFH
provider becomes aware of.
SURYLGHUEHFRPHVDZDUHRI

&
C.1.4 7RRO6HOHFWLRQ&KHFN
Tool Selection Check

The purpose of the tool selection check is to ensure that the inspection tool is capable of assessing the specic threat
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKHWRROVHOHFWLRQFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRROLVFDSDEOHRIDVVHVVLQJWKHVSHFLILFWKUHDW
on the pipeline. The primary guidance appears in NACE SPO102, Table 1.
RQWKHSLSHOLQH7KHSULPDU\JXLGDQFHDSSHDUVLQ1$&(637DEOH

In addition to the NACE guidance, the operator needs to understand the capabilities and limitations of the specic tool
,QDGGLWLRQWRWKH1$&(JXLGDQFHWKHRSHUDWRUQHHGVWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHFDSDELOLWLHVDQGOLPLWDWLRQVRIWKHVSHFLILFWRRO
selected for the inspection and ensure that the goals of the inspection are satisfied.
VHOHFWHGIRUWKHLQVSHFWLRQDQGHQVXUHWKDWWKHJRDOVRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQDUHVDWLVILHG

53

54
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

Item
,WHP Check
&KHFN Description
'HVFULSWLRQ
1 Prerun Tool Selection Check
3UHUXQ7RRO6HOHFWLRQ&KHFN Ensures that the inspection tool and technology were well suited to
(QVXUHVWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRRODQGWHFKQRORJ\ZHUHZHOOVXLWHGWR
detect and assess the specic threat which the inspection is intended to
GHWHFWDQGDVVHVVWKHVSHFLILFWKUHDWZKLFKWKHLQVSHFWLRQLVLQWHQGHGWR
address.
DGGUHVV
2
 |L| Provider Performance History
,/,3URYLGHU3HUIRUPDQFH+LVWRU\ Ensures that the inspection tool service provider has a history of
(QVXUHVWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRROVHUYLFHSURYLGHUKDVDKLVWRU\RI
successful inspections with the specic tool and/or technology;
VXFFHVVIXOLQVSHFWLRQVZLWKWKHVSHFLILFWRRODQGRUWHFKQRORJ\
3
 Planning and Preparation
3ODQQLQJDQG3UHSDUDWLRQ Ensures that the inspection was well planned with adequate discussions
(QVXUHVWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQZDVZHOOSODQQHGZLWKDGHTXDWHGLVFXVVLRQV
between the operator and the inspection service provider and that all
EHWZHHQWKHRSHUDWRUDQGWKHLQVSHFWLRQVHUYLFHSURYLGHUDQGWKDWDOO
potential issues of the inspection were anticipated.
SRWHQWLDOLVVXHVRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQZHUHDQWLFLSDWHG
Ensures that all proper and necessary preparation steps such as
(QVXUHVWKDWDOOSURSHUDQGQHFHVVDU\SUHSDUDWLRQVWHSVVXFKDV
cleaning of the pipeline were done.
FOHDQLQJRIWKHSLSHOLQHZHUHGRQH
4
 Function Check
)XQFWLRQ&KHFN Ensure that all prerun function tests of the tool were done prior to the run
(QVXUHWKDWDOOSUHUXQIXQFWLRQWHVWVRIWKHWRROZHUHGRQHSULRUWRWKHUXQ
to ensure a successful run.
WRHQVXUHDVXFFHVVIXOUXQ
5
 Mechanical Check
0HFKDQLFDO&KHFN Ensures that all mechanical tests of the tool were completed prior to the
(QVXUHVWKDWDOOPHFKDQLFDOWHVWVRIWKHWRROZHUHFRPSOHWHGSULRUWRWKH
run to ensure a successful run.
UXQWRHQVXUHDVXFFHVVIXOUXQ
6
 Execution
([HFXWLRQ Ensures that the running of the tool in the pipeline was conducted
(QVXUHVWKDWWKHUXQQLQJRIWKHWRROLQWKHSLSHOLQHZDVFRQGXFWHG
according to the plan without signicant deviation.
DFFRUGLQJWRWKHSODQZLWKRXWVLJQLILFDQWGHYLDWLRQ
7
 Postrun Function Check
3RVWUXQ)XQFWLRQ&KHFN Ensures that all postrun function tests of the tool were done and that the
(QVXUHVWKDWDOOSRVWUXQIXQFWLRQWHVWVRIWKHWRROZHUHGRQHDQGWKDWWKH
tool was operating properly for the full length of the run.
WRROZDVRSHUDWLQJSURSHUO\IRUWKHIXOOOHQJWKRIWKHUXQ
8
 Postrun Mechanical Check
3RVWUXQ0HFKDQLFDO&KHFN Ensure all postrun mechanical tests of the tool were done and that the
(QVXUHDOOSRVWUXQPHFKDQLFDOWHVWVRIWKHWRROZHUHGRQHDQGWKDWWKH
tool was operating properly for the full length of the run.
WRROZDVRSHUDWLQJSURSHUO\IRUWKHIXOOOHQJWKRIWKHUXQ
9
 Field Data Check
)LHOG'DWD&KHFN Ensures the integrity of the data collected throughout the run.
(QVXUHVWKHLQWHJULW\RIWKHGDWDFROOHFWHGWKURXJKRXWWKHUXQ
10
 Data Analysis Check
'DWD$QDO\VLV&KHFN Ensures the analysis of the inspection results was conducted according
(QVXUHVWKHDQDO\VLVRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQUHVXOWVZDVFRQGXFWHGDFFRUGLQJ
to the plan and expectations of the operator.
WRWKHSODQDQGH[SHFWDWLRQVRIWKHRSHUDWRU

The inclusion of this check ensures that an inspection conducted to address one threat is not also used to assess
7KHLQFOXVLRQRIWKLVFKHFNHQVXUHVWKDWDQLQVSHFWLRQFRQGXFWHGWRDGGUHVVRQHWKUHDWLVQRWDOVRXVHGWRDVVHVV
threats to which it is not suited. (For example, an MFL tool may have been run to assess corrosion, but it should not
WKUHDWVWRZKLFKLWLVQRWVXLWHG)RUH[DPSOHDQ0)/WRROPD\KDYHEHHQUXQWRDVVHVVFRUURVLRQEXWLWVKRXOGQRW
be used to assess potential SCC.) Also, the inclusion of this item is required to make the overall procedure objective.
EHXVHGWRDVVHVVSRWHQWLDO6&&$OVRWKHLQFOXVLRQRIWKLVLWHPLVUHTXLUHGWRPDNHWKHRYHUDOOSURFHGXUHREMHFWLYH
A person not previously involved in the inspection may verify that the tool is suitable for the job.
$SHUVRQQRWSUHYLRXVO\LQYROYHGLQWKHLQVSHFWLRQPD\YHULI\WKDWWKHWRROLVVXLWDEOHIRUWKHMRE

C.1.5 ,/,6\VWHP&KHFN
& ILI System Check

The lLl system check is to ensure that the inspection tool used in the inspection has a history of successful runs and
7KH,/,V\VWHPFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRROXVHGLQWKHLQVSHFWLRQKDVDKLVWRU\RIVXFFHVVIXOUXQVDQG
that the inspection system is likely to perform successfully. An operator may decide to run an untested technology in a
WKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQV\VWHPLVOLNHO\WRSHUIRUPVXFFHVVIXOO\$QRSHUDWRUPD\GHFLGHWRUXQDQXQWHVWHGWHFKQRORJ\LQD
pipeline from
SLSHOLQH time WR
IURP WLPH to WLPH
time, EXW
but WKDW
that UXQ
run VKRXOG
should QRW
not EH
be XVHG
used to assess WKH
WR DVVHVV the threat on the
WKUHDW RQ pipeline without
WKH SLSHOLQH adequate
ZLWKRXW DGHTXDWH
validation.
YDOLGDWLRQ

Whereas the emphasis of the tool selection check is to ensure that the technology is capable of detecting and sizing
:KHUHDVWKHHPSKDVLVRIWKHWRROVHOHFWLRQFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHWHFKQRORJ\LVFDSDEOHRIGHWHFWLQJDQGVL]LQJ
the anomalies, the motivation of this check is to ensure that the inspection system and the lLl service provider are
WKHDQRPDOLHVWKHPRWLYDWLRQRIWKLVFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQV\VWHPDQGWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUDUH
able to deliver quality data as demonstrated by its history of successful runs.
DEOHWRGHOLYHUTXDOLW\GDWDDVGHPRQVWUDWHGE\LWVKLVWRU\RIVXFFHVVIXOUXQV

C.1.6 3ODQQLQJDQG3UHSDUDWLRQ&KHFN
& Planning and Preparation Check

The planning and preparation check is to ensure that all planning and preparation procedures are completed properly
7KHSODQQLQJDQGSUHSDUDWLRQFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWDOOSODQQLQJDQGSUHSDUDWLRQSURFHGXUHVDUHFRPSOHWHGSURSHUO\
prior to the inspection. NACE SPO102-201O (Sections 4, 5, and 6) contains details of the types of activities that are
SULRUWRWKHLQVSHFWLRQ1$&(636HFWLRQVDQGFRQWDLQVGHWDLOVRIWKHW\SHVRIDFWLYLWLHVWKDWDUH
typically undertaken as part of prerun planning. Preparation includes all necessary steps to prepare the pipeline for
W\SLFDOO\XQGHUWDNHQDVSDUWRISUHUXQSODQQLQJ3UHSDUDWLRQLQFOXGHVDOOQHFHVVDU\VWHSVWRSUHSDUHWKHSLSHOLQHIRU
inspection: WKHVH
LQVSHFWLRQ these VWHSV
steps LQFOXGH
include EXW
(but DUH
are QRW
not OLPLWHG
limited WRWKH
to) the SUHLQVSHFWLRQ
preinspection FOHDQLQJ of WKH
cleaning RI the SLSHOLQH
pipeline DQG
and UXQQLQJ
running RI
of D
a
caliper tool.
FDOLSHUWRRO
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION SYSTEMS
163(&7,216 QUALIFICATION
<67(064 8$/,),&$7,21 55


&
C.1.7 3UHUXQ)XQFWLRQ&KHFN
Prerun Function Check

The prerun function check is to ensure that the inspection tool is in working condition prior to the launching of the
7KHSUHUXQIXQFWLRQFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRROLVLQZRUNLQJFRQGLWLRQSULRUWRWKHODXQFKLQJRIWKH
inspection WRRO7KH
LQVSHFWLRQ tool. The IXQFWLRQ
function FKHFNOLVW
checklist VKRXOG
should EH
be SURYLGHG
provided E\
by WKH
the ,/,
|L| YHQGRU
vendor, EH
be VWDQGDUGL]HGDQG
standardized, and EH
be LGHQWLILHG
identified LQ
in
advance of the inspection. The checklist includes, but is not limited to, appropriate initialization of all components, the
DGYDQFHRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQ7KHFKHFNOLVWLQFOXGHVEXWLVQRWOLPLWHGWRDSSURSULDWHLQLWLDOL]DWLRQRIDOOFRPSRQHQWVWKH
adequacy DQG
DGHTXDF\ and DYDLODELOLW\
availability RI
of WKH
the SRZHU
power VXSSO\
supply, FRQILUPDWLRQ
confirmation that all VHQVRUV
WKDW DOO sensors DUH
are FDOLEUDWHG
calibrated DQG
and RSHUDWLRQDO
operational, DQG
and
confirmation of adequacy and availability of data storage.
FRQILUPDWLRQRIDGHTXDF\DQGDYDLODELOLW\RIGDWDVWRUDJH

The verification of the documentation of the prerun function tests is required by this standard and is indicative of the
7KHYHULILFDWLRQRIWKHGRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKHSUHUXQIXQFWLRQWHVWVLVUHTXLUHGE\WKLVVWDQGDUGDQGLVLQGLFDWLYHRIWKH
lLl service providers diligence in following established standards and recommended practices.
,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVGLOLJHQFHLQIROORZLQJHVWDEOLVKHGVWDQGDUGVDQGUHFRPPHQGHGSUDFWLFHV

&
C.1.8 3UHUXQ0HFKDQLFDO&KHFN
Prerun Mechanical Check

The prerun mechanical check is to ensure that the lLl service provider carried out all necessary tests to ensure the
7KHSUHUXQPHFKDQLFDOFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUFDUULHGRXWDOOQHFHVVDU\WHVWVWRHQVXUHWKH
mechanical integrity of the tool prior to launching the inspection tool. The prerun mechanical checks are specific to
PHFKDQLFDOLQWHJULW\RIWKHWRROSULRUWRODXQFKLQJWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRRO7KHSUHUXQPHFKDQLFDOFKHFNVDUHVSHFLILFWR
each service provider and technology used. The mechanical checklist should be provided by the |L| service provider,
HDFKVHUYLFHSURYLGHUDQGWHFKQRORJ\XVHG7KHPHFKDQLFDOFKHFNOLVWVKRXOGEHSURYLGHGE\WKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHU
standardized, and identified in advance of the inspection. The checklist includes, but is not limited to: general visual
VWDQGDUGL]HGDQGLGHQWLILHGLQDGYDQFHRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQ7KHFKHFNOLVWLQFOXGHVEXWLVQRWOLPLWHGWRJHQHUDOYLVXDO
inspection, confirming good pressure seals around electronic components, ensuring adequate integrity of cups, and
LQVSHFWLRQFRQILUPLQJJRRGSUHVVXUHVHDOVDURXQGHOHFWURQLFFRPSRQHQWVHQVXULQJDGHTXDWHLQWHJULW\RIFXSVDQG
ensuring all parts and sensors are intact and able to move appropriately.
HQVXULQJDOOSDUWVDQGVHQVRUVDUHLQWDFWDQGDEOHWRPRYHDSSURSULDWHO\

The verication of the documentation of these tests is required by this standard and its documentation is indicative of
7KHYHULILFDWLRQRIWKHGRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKHVHWHVWVLVUHTXLUHGE\WKLVVWDQGDUGDQGLWVGRFXPHQWDWLRQLVLQGLFDWLYHRI
the lLl service providers diligence in following established standards and recommended practices.
WKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVGLOLJHQFHLQIROORZLQJHVWDEOLVKHGVWDQGDUGVDQGUHFRPPHQGHGSUDFWLFHV

&
C.1.9 ([HFXWLRQ&KHFN
Execution Check

The execution check is to ensure that the running of the inspection tool is executed in such a way as to ensure a
7KHH[HFXWLRQFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHUXQQLQJRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRROLVH[HFXWHGLQVXFKDZD\DVWRHQVXUHD
successful lLl. These checks include, but are not limited to:
VXFFHVVIXO,/,7KHVHFKHFNVLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWR

FKHFNWKDWWKHWRROUXQLVH[HFXWHGDVSHUWKHSODQQHGSLJJLQJSURFHGXUH
 check that the tool run is executed as perthe planned pigging procedure;

FKHFN
 check WKDW
that WKH
the OLQH
line FRQGLWLRQ
condition SDUDPHWHUV
parameters IOXLG
(fluid FRPSRVLWLRQ
composition, flow rate, WHPSHUDWXUH
IORZ UDWH temperature, DQG
and SUHVVXUH
pressure) DUH
are LQ
in
accordance with the planned procedure;
DFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHSODQQHGSURFHGXUH

FKHFNWKDWWKHOLQHFRQGLWLRQVIRUWRROODXQFKDUHDVH[SHFWHGDQGWKHODXQFKFDQSURFHHGDVSODQQHG
 check that the line conditions for tool launch are as expected and the launch can proceed as planned;

FKHFNWKDWWKHOLQHFRQGLWLRQVIRUWRROUHFHLSWDUHDVH[SHFWHGDQGWKHUHFHLSWFDQSURFHHGDVSODQQHG
 check that the line conditions for tool receipt are as expected and the receipt can proceed as planned;

FKHFN
 check WKDW
that WKH
the WRRO
tool VSHHG
speed LV
is within the SODQQHG
ZLWKLQ WKH planned UDQJH
range IRU
for the length RI
WKH OHQJWK of the run LI
WKH UXQ (if GHYLDWLRQV
deviations RFFXU
occur, DUH
are they
WKH\
expected and assessed in advance?);
H[SHFWHGDQGDVVHVVHGLQDGYDQFH"

FKHFNWKDWWKHWUDFNLQJRIWKHWRROLVDFFRUGLQJWRSODQ
 check that the tracking of the tool is according to plan.

This SDUDPHWHU
7KLV parameter LVis GHVLJQHG
designed WR
to HQVXUH
ensure WKDW
that WKH
the DFWXDO
actual LQVSHFWLRQ
inspection was conducted LQ
ZDV FRQGXFWHG in VXFKD
such a way as WR
ZD\ DV to HQVXUH
ensure KLJK
high-
quality inspection data and that any deviations from expected conditions are documented. The documentation of the
TXDOLW\LQVSHFWLRQGDWDDQGWKDWDQ\GHYLDWLRQVIURPH[SHFWHGFRQGLWLRQVDUHGRFXPHQWHG7KHGRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKH
run LV
UXQ is LQGLFDWLYH
indicative RI
of WKH
the ,/,
lLl VHUYLFH
service SURYLGHUV
providers DQG
and RSHUDWRUV
operators GLOLJHQFH
diligence LQ
in following established VWDQGDUGV
IROORZLQJ HVWDEOLVKHG standards DQG
and
recommended practices.
UHFRPPHQGHGSUDFWLFHV

&
C.1.1O 3RVWUXQ)XQFWLRQ&KHFN
Postrun Function Check

The SRVWUXQ
7KH postrun IXQFWLRQ
function FKHFN
check LV
is WR
to HQVXUH
ensure WKDW
that WKH
the ,/,
lLl VHUYLFH
service SURYLGHU
provider FDUULHG
carried RXW
out DOO
all QHFHVVDU\
necessary WHVWV
tests to ensure WKH
WR HQVXUH the
functional operation of the tool upon receipt at the end of the run. The function checks are specific to each service
IXQFWLRQDORSHUDWLRQRIWKHWRROXSRQUHFHLSWDWWKHHQGRIWKHUXQ7KHIXQFWLRQFKHFNVDUHVSHFLILFWRHDFKVHUYLFH
provider and technology used. The function checklist should be provided by the |L| service provider, standardized,
SURYLGHUDQGWHFKQRORJ\XVHG7KHIXQFWLRQFKHFNOLVWVKRXOGEHSURYLGHGE\WKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVWDQGDUGL]HG
and LGHQWLILHG
DQG identified LQ
in DGYDQFH
advance RI
of WKH
the LQVSHFWLRQ
inspection. 7KH
The FKHFNOLVW
checklist LQFOXGHV
includes, EXW
but LV
is QRW
not OLPLWHG
limited WR
to, FRQILUPLQJ
confirming DSSURSULDWH
appropriate
56
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

operation of all components, confirming sensors are operational and still within calibration, and confirming that there
RSHUDWLRQRIDOOFRPSRQHQWVFRQILUPLQJVHQVRUVDUHRSHUDWLRQDODQGVWLOOZLWKLQFDOLEUDWLRQDQGFRQILUPLQJWKDWWKHUH
is adequate power and data storage during the inspection.
LVDGHTXDWHSRZHUDQGGDWDVWRUDJHGXULQJWKHLQVSHFWLRQ

The purpose of this item is to ensure that the inspection tool did not experience any sensor or system failures during
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVLWHPLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRROGLGQRWH[SHULHQFHDQ\VHQVRURUV\VWHPIDLOXUHVGXULQJ
the course of the inspection. The documentation of these tests is indicative of the lLl service providers diligence in
WKHFRXUVHRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQ7KHGRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKHVHWHVWVLVLQGLFDWLYHRIWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVGLOLJHQFHLQ
following established standards and recommended practices.
IROORZLQJHVWDEOLVKHGVWDQGDUGVDQGUHFRPPHQGHGSUDFWLFHV

&
C.1.11 3RVWUXQ0HFKDQLFDO&KHFN
Postrun Mechanical Check

The postrun mechanical check is to ensure that the lLl service provider carried out all necessary tests to ensure the
7KHSRVWUXQPHFKDQLFDOFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUFDUULHGRXWDOOQHFHVVDU\WHVWVWRHQVXUHWKH
mechanical integrity of the tool upon receipt at the end of the run. The postrun mechanical checks are specific to each
PHFKDQLFDOLQWHJULW\RIWKHWRROXSRQUHFHLSWDWWKHHQGRIWKHUXQ7KHSRVWUXQPHFKDQLFDOFKHFNVDUHVSHFLILFWRHDFK
service SURYLGHU
VHUYLFH provider DQG
and WHFKQRORJ\
technology XVHG
used. 7KH
The PHFKDQLFDO
mechanical FKHFNOLVW
checklist VKRXOG
should EH
be SURYLGHG
provided E\
by WKH
the ,/,
lLl VHUYLFH
service SURYLGHU
provider,
standardized, and identied in advance of the inspection.
VWDQGDUGL]HGDQGLGHQWLILHGLQDGYDQFHRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQ

The FKHFNOLVWLQFOXGHVEXW
7KH checklist includes, but LV
is QRW
not OLPLWHG
limited WRDVVHVVLQJJHQHUDO
to, assessing: general VWDWH
state RI
of the tool, SUHVVXUH
WKH WRRO pressure VHDOV
seals DURXQG
around HOHFWURQLF
electronic
components, integrity of cups, tool cleanliness, and tool wear, as well as ensuring all parts and sensors are intact and
FRPSRQHQWVLQWHJULW\RIFXSVWRROFOHDQOLQHVVDQGWRROZHDUDVZHOODVHQVXULQJDOOSDUWVDQGVHQVRUVDUHLQWDFWDQG
able to move appropriately.
DEOHWRPRYHDSSURSULDWHO\

The purpose of this item is to ensure that the inspection tool was not damaged during the course of the inspection.
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVLWHPLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHLQVSHFWLRQWRROZDVQRWGDPDJHGGXULQJWKHFRXUVHRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQ
The documentation of these tests is indicative of the lLl service providers diligence in following established standards
7KHGRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKHVHWHVWVLVLQGLFDWLYHRIWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVGLOLJHQFHLQIROORZLQJHVWDEOLVKHGVWDQGDUGV
and recommended practices.
DQGUHFRPPHQGHGSUDFWLFHV

&
C.1.12 )LHOG'DWD&KHFN
Field Data Check

The field data check is to ensure that the lLl service provider carried out all necessary tests to ensure the integrity of
7KHILHOGGDWDFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUFDUULHGRXWDOOQHFHVVDU\WHVWVWRHQVXUHWKHLQWHJULW\RI
the data collected throughout the run. These tests are specific to each service provider and technology used. The
WKHGDWDFROOHFWHGWKURXJKRXWWKHUXQ7KHVHWHVWVDUHVSHFLILFWRHDFKVHUYLFHSURYLGHUDQGWHFKQRORJ\XVHG7KH
field data FKHFNOLVW
ILHOG GDWD checklist VKRXOG
should EH
be SURYLGHG
provided E\
by WKH
the ,/,
|L| VHUYLFH
service SURYLGHU
provider, VWDQGDUGL]HG
standardized, DQG
and LGHQWLILHG
identified LQ
in DGYDQFH
advance RI
of WKH
the
inspection. The checklist includes, but is not limited to: amount of data collected, circumferential and linear continuity
LQVSHFWLRQ7KHFKHFNOLVWLQFOXGHVEXWLVQRWOLPLWHGWRDPRXQWRIGDWDFROOHFWHGFLUFXPIHUHQWLDODQGOLQHDUFRQWLQXLW\
of data, and documenting locations of data degradation or loss due to reasons such DVLQVXIILFLHQWPDJQHWL]DWLRQ
RIGDWDDQGGRFXPHQWLQJORFDWLRQVRIGDWDGHJUDGDWLRQRUORVVGXHWRUHDVRQVVXFK as insufficient magnetization,
speed excursions, pipeline cleanliness, or sensor head liftoff.
VSHHGH[FXUVLRQVSLSHOLQHFOHDQOLQHVVRUVHQVRUKHDGOLIWRII

The SXUSRVH
7KH purpose RI
of WKLV
this LWHP
item LV
is WR
to HQVXUH
ensure WKDW
that WKH
the LQVSHFWLRQ
inspection WRRO
tool FROOHFWHG
collected GDWD
data IRU
for WKH
the full length RI
IXOO OHQJWK of the line. 7KH
WKH OLQH The
documentation of these tests is indicative of the lLl service providers diligence in following established standards and
GRFXPHQWDWLRQRIWKHVHWHVWVLVLQGLFDWLYHRIWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVGLOLJHQFHLQIROORZLQJHVWDEOLVKHGVWDQGDUGVDQG
recommended practices.
UHFRPPHQGHGSUDFWLFHV

C.1.13 'DWD$QDO\VLV&KHFN
& Data Analysis Check

The data analysis check ensures that the data were properly handled and analyzed by the lLl service provider in the
7KHGDWDDQDO\VLVFKHFNHQVXUHVWKDWWKHGDWDZHUHSURSHUO\KDQGOHGDQGDQDO\]HGE\WKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHULQWKH
production of the final report. These checks are specific to each operator, service provider, and technology used.
SURGXFWLRQRIWKHILQDOUHSRUW7KHVHFKHFNVDUHVSHFLILFWRHDFKRSHUDWRUVHUYLFHSURYLGHUDQGWHFKQRORJ\XVHG

The data analysis should be discussed and decided jointly by the operator and lLl service provider. The operator and
7KHGDWDDQDO\VLVVKRXOGEHGLVFXVVHGDQGGHFLGHGMRLQWO\E\WKHRSHUDWRUDQG,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHU7KHRSHUDWRUDQG
lLl service provider should agree on items such as sizing algorithms to use, amount of manual intervention, filtering of
,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVKRXOGDJUHHRQLWHPVVXFKDVVL]LQJDOJRULWKPVWRXVHDPRXQWRIPDQXDOLQWHUYHQWLRQILOWHULQJRI
reported anomalies, clustering rules, burst pressure procedure, reporting requirements, etc. In addition, the operator
UHSRUWHGDQRPDOLHVFOXVWHULQJUXOHVEXUVWSUHVVXUHSURFHGXUHUHSRUWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVHWF,QDGGLWLRQWKHRSHUDWRU
should also discuss analysts qualications (Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3) for whom should perform the analysis.
VKRXOGDOVRGLVFXVVDQDO\VWVTXDOLILFDWLRQV/HYHO/HYHORU/HYHOIRUZKRPVKRXOGSHUIRUPWKHDQDO\VLV

The check must also include a review of any additional requirements for the inspection, including any standards or
7KHFKHFNPXVWDOVRLQFOXGHDUHYLHZRIDQ\DGGLWLRQDOUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHLQVSHFWLRQLQFOXGLQJDQ\VWDQGDUGVRU
codes applicable to the inspection.
FRGHVDSSOLFDEOHWRWKHLQVSHFWLRQ

This final check is to ensure that the raw data from the inspection have been properly analyzed by the lLl service
7KLVILQDOFKHFNLVWRHQVXUHWKDWWKHUDZGDWDIURPWKHLQVSHFWLRQKDYHEHHQSURSHUO\DQDO\]HGE\WKH,/,VHUYLFH
provider DQG
SURYLGHU and WKDW
that WKH
the ILQDO
final UHSRUW
report VDWLVILHV
satises WKH
the UHTXLUHPHQWV
requirements RI
of WKH
the LQVSHFWLRQ
inspection. 7KH
The GRFXPHQWDWLRQ
documentation RI
of this check LV
WKLV FKHFN is
indicative of the lLl service providers diligence in following established standards and recommended practices.
LQGLFDWLYHRIWKH,/,VHUYLFHSURYLGHUVGLOLJHQFHLQIROORZLQJHVWDEOLVKHGVWDQGDUGVDQGUHFRPPHQGHGSUDFWLFHV
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION
163(&7,216 <67(064
SYSTEMS QUALIFICATION
8$/,),&$7,21 
57

Finally the results of the inspection should be consistent with the expectations of the operator considering the age,
)LQDOO\WKHUHVXOWVRIWKHLQVSHFWLRQVKRXOGEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHH[SHFWDWLRQVRIWKHRSHUDWRUFRQVLGHULQJWKHDJH
coating and internal and external environment of the pipeline.
FRDWLQJDQGLQWHUQDODQGH[WHUQDOHQYLURQPHQWRIWKHSLSHOLQH

&
C.1.14 &XPXODWLYH$VVHVVPHQW
Cumulative Assessment

The FXPXODWLYH
7KH cumulative DVVHVVPHQW
assessment FRQVLVWVRI
consists of D
a UHYLHZ
review RI
of WKH
the SRLQW
10-point YHULILFDWLRQ
verification FKHFNOLVW
checklist WR
to HQVXUH
ensure WKDW
that DOO
all LVVXHV
issues DUH
are
addressed to ensure the integrity of the pipeline. Often, the issues affect only portions of the inspected pipeline. The
DGGUHVVHGWRHQVXUHWKHLQWHJULW\RIWKHSLSHOLQH2IWHQWKHLVVXHVDIIHFWRQO\SRUWLRQVRIWKHLQVSHFWHGSLSHOLQH7KH
operator VKDOO
RSHUDWRU shall HQVXUH
ensure WKDW
that WKH
the FRPELQHG
combined HIIHFW
effect RI
of FRLQFLGHQW
coincident LVVXHV
issues LVis PDQDJHDEOH
manageable. 7KHThe Affected Location 0DS
$IIHFWHG /RFDWLRQ Map
(below) is a sample form to identify where the issues exist and assist in identifying coincident issues.
EHORZLVDVDPSOHIRUPWRLGHQWLI\ZKHUHWKHLVVXHVH[LVWDQGDVVLVWLQLGHQWLI\LQJFRLQFLGHQWLVVXHV

As a result of the cumulative assessment step, a decision is to be made by the operator to either accept the lLl results
$VDUHVXOWRIWKHFXPXODWLYHDVVHVVPHQWVWHSDGHFLVLRQLVWREHPDGHE\WKHRSHUDWRUWRHLWKHUDFFHSWWKH,/,UHVXOWV
(or part thereof) as Level 1 validated or partially escalate further validation to Level 2 or Level 3.
RUSDUWWKHUHRIDV/HYHOYDOLGDWHGRUSDUWLDOO\HVFDODWHIXUWKHUYDOLGDWLRQWR/HYHORU/HYHO

The Level 1 validation could be achieved in a variety of ways, including a risk assessment of features based on an
7KH/HYHOYDOLGDWLRQFRXOGEHDFKLHYHGLQDYDULHW\RIZD\VLQFOXGLQJDULVNDVVHVVPHQWRIIHDWXUHVEDVHGRQDQ
increased tolerance if there are indications of data degradation at their location.
LQFUHDVHGWROHUDQFHLIWKHUHDUHLQGLFDWLRQVRIGDWDGHJUDGDWLRQDWWKHLUORFDWLRQ

C.2 &RPSDULVRQRI,/,DQG)LHOG0HDVXUHPHQWV
& Comparison of ILI and Field Measurements

C.2.1 *HQHUDO
& General

A unity graph is a simple visual tool to begin the validation of lLl results. For example, a graphical view of the sizing
$XQLW\JUDSKLVDVLPSOHYLVXDOWRROWREHJLQWKHYDOLGDWLRQRI,/,UHVXOWV)RUH[DPSOHDJUDSKLFDOYLHZRIWKHVL]LQJ
accuracy can be created by plotting the comparison of depth of individual anomalies as reported by the lLl service
DFFXUDF\FDQEHFUHDWHGE\SORWWLQJWKHFRPSDULVRQRIGHSWKRILQGLYLGXDODQRPDOLHVDVUHSRUWHGE\WKH,/,VHUYLFH
provider and the measurement results of a field excavation. Figure C.1 shows an example of a graph that supports lLl
SURYLGHUDQGWKHPHDVXUHPHQWUHVXOWVRIDILHOGH[FDYDWLRQ)LJXUH&VKRZVDQH[DPSOHRIDJUDSKWKDWVXSSRUWV,/,
system UHVXOWV
V\VWHP results DUH
are FRQVLVWHQW
consistent with the SHUIRUPDQFH
ZLWK WKH performance VSHFLILFDWLRQ
specification. )RU
For EHVW
best UHVXOWV
results, LW
it LV
is LPSRUWDQW
important WR
to RQO\
only SORW
plot OLNH
like
objects on a single unity plot. It may be beneficial or necessary to make separate unity plots for separate anomaly
REMHFWVRQDVLQJOHXQLW\SORW,WPD\EHEHQHILFLDORUQHFHVVDU\WRPDNHVHSDUDWHXQLW\SORWVIRUVHSDUDWHDQRPDO\
classes.
FODVVHV

60 " """""""" """"""""" """""" """"""""

5' / i
i i o i --------------- 5 -------------
/ i i
50 -- ---------------- K : -------------/:
A /
i' ----------- /
s 40 / ; ------------- aye --------------g
E - : -,: i I
a x a a
e a 0540 a ' /a ' a a
E ................ i. ............. IKU ........ ...........----E.(............ i.................i
30-.

8 85 000... a ,r-------- a a ----------------a

3 20-- ------- an -------- ____7___. . g
/ a a a a a

O 10 20 30 4O 5O 6O
Ditch Depth (wt %)
Figure &8QLW\&KDUW([DPSOH
)LJXUH C.1Unity Chart Example

To HQDEOH
7R enable D
a YDOLGFRPSDULVRQWKH
valid comparison, the SK\VLFDO
physical XQLWVDQG
units and VWDWLVWLFDOSDUDPHWHUVRIWKHGLIIHUHQW
statistical parameters of the different PHDVXUHPHQWPHWKRGV
measurement methods
must be unitized at the beginning. Although the discussion in this annex is mostly focused on the depth, the same
PXVWEHXQLWL]HGDWWKHEHJLQQLQJ$OWKRXJKWKHGLVFXVVLRQLQWKLVDQQH[LVPRVWO\IRFXVHGRQWKHGHSWKWKHVDPH
principles apply to other feature properties such as length and width.
SULQFLSOHVDSSO\WRRWKHUIHDWXUHSURSHUWLHVVXFKDVOHQJWKDQGZLGWK
58
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

In 0.2 the main objective is to decide whether the as-run tool performance is significantly worse than specied by the
,Q&WKHPDLQREMHFWLYHLVWRGHFLGHZKHWKHUWKHDVUXQWRROSHUIRUPDQFHLVVLJQLILFDQWO\ZRUVHWKDQVSHFLILHGE\WKH
tool YHQGRU
WRRO vendor. ,Q
In &
C.3 WKH
the REMHFWLYH
objective LV
is WR
to GHWHUPLQH
determine Da JRRG
good HVWLPDWH
estimate RI
of WKH
the DVUXQ
as-run tool performance. An
WRRO SHUIRUPDQFH often-cited
$Q RIWHQFLWHG
drawback of the hypothesis testing approach in 0.2 is that for relatively small samples, extremely large deviations
GUDZEDFNRIWKHK\SRWKHVLVWHVWLQJDSSURDFKLQ&LVWKDWIRUUHODWLYHO\VPDOOVDPSOHVH[WUHPHO\ODUJHGHYLDWLRQV
from expected SHUIRUPDQFH
IURP H[SHFWHG performance PXVW
must RFFXU
occur IRU
for WKH
the GLIIHUHQFHV
differences to be GHHPHG
WR EH deemed VWDWLVWLFDOO\
statistically VLJQLILFDQW
significant, EXW
but for large
IRU ODUJH
datasets, HYHQ
GDWDVHWV even IDLUO\
fairly VPDOO
small GHYLDWLRQV
deviations IURP
from H[SHFWHG
expected WRRO
tool SHUIRUPDQFH
performance PD\
may EH
be FDXVH
cause for statistically VLJQLILFDQW
IRU VWDWLVWLFDOO\ significant
deviations from the stated tool performance. In reality, the latter may not be cause for concern from a pipeline integrity
GHYLDWLRQVIURPWKHVWDWHGWRROSHUIRUPDQFH,QUHDOLW\WKHODWWHUPD\QRWEHFDXVHIRUFRQFHUQIURPDSLSHOLQHLQWHJULW\
point of view whereas the former may in fact be and trigger additional validation work. Therefore, a direct estimation of
SRLQWRIYLHZZKHUHDVWKHIRUPHUPD\LQIDFWEHDQGWULJJHUDGGLWLRQDOYDOLGDWLRQZRUN7KHUHIRUHDGLUHFWHVWLPDWLRQRI
the WRRO
WKH tool SHUIRUPDQFH
performance PD\may EH
be KHOSIXO
helpful LQ
in GHWHUPLQLQJ
determining WKH
the RSWLPDO
optimal FRXUVH
course RI
of DFWLRQ
action for the FRQWLQXHG
IRU WKH continued DVVXUDQFH
assurance RI of
pipeline integrity.
SLSHOLQHLQWHJULW\

The main objective of Annex C is to outline some considerations and provide general guidance rather than be overly
7KHPDLQREMHFWLYHRI$QQH[&LVWRRXWOLQHVRPHFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDQGSURYLGHJHQHUDOJXLGDQFHUDWKHUWKDQEHRYHUO\
prescriptive and convey statistical recipes.
SUHVFULSWLYHDQGFRQYH\VWDWLVWLFDOUHFLSHV

C.2.2 8QLW\&KDUWV
& Unity Charts

A unity chart (see Figure 0.1 for an example) is a straightfonNard and easy-to-interpret qualitative aid to understand
$XQLW\FKDUWVHH)LJXUH&IRUDQH[DPSOHLVDVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGDQGHDV\WRLQWHUSUHWTXDOLWDWLYHDLGWRXQGHUVWDQG
the overall tool performance. On the unity chart, the verification measurement is plotted along the horizontal axis and
WKHRYHUDOOWRROSHUIRUPDQFH2QWKHXQLW\FKDUWWKHYHULILFDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWLVSORWWHGDORQJWKHKRUL]RQWDOD[LVDQG
the ,/,
WKH lLl PHDVXUHPHQW
measurement LVis SORWWHG
plotted RQ
on WKH
the YHUWLFDO
vertical D[LV
axis. 8VXDOO\
Usually D
a XQLW\
unity OLQH
line WKDW
that UHSUHVHQWV
represents D
a RQHWRRQH
one-to-one FRPSDULVRQ
comparison
between field-recorded and lLl data are added (red line in Figure 0.1) as well as the stated confidence bounds (80 %
EHWZHHQILHOGUHFRUGHGDQG,/,GDWDDUHDGGHGUHGOLQHLQ)LJXUH&DVZHOODVWKHVWDWHGFRQILGHQFHERXQGV
confidence ERXQGV
FRQILGHQFH bounds DUH
are YLVXDOL]HG
visualized with green OLQHV
ZLWK JUHHQ lines LQ
in )LJXUH
Figure &
0.1). )RU
For HDVLHVW interpretation, WKH
easiest LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ the verification
YHULILFDWLRQ
measurements should have tolerances at least three times less than the lLl data (othenNise the chart will be visibly
PHDVXUHPHQWVVKRXOGKDYHWROHUDQFHVDWOHDVWWKUHHWLPHVOHVVWKDQWKH,/,GDWDRWKHUZLVHWKHFKDUWZLOOEHYLVLEO\
distorted and the methods suggested in C.3 should be used) and all data points should have comparable tolerance
GLVWRUWHGDQGWKHPHWKRGVVXJJHVWHGLQ&VKRXOGEHXVHGDQGDOOGDWDSRLQWVVKRXOGKDYHFRPSDUDEOHWROHUDQFH
limits. Separate unity charts can be created to offer comparisons based on different types of metal loss geometries.
OLPLWV6HSDUDWHXQLW\FKDUWVFDQEHFUHDWHGWRRIIHUFRPSDULVRQVEDVHGRQGLIIHUHQWW\SHVRIPHWDOORVVJHRPHWULHV

The chart in Figure 0.1 gives a visual reflection of the tool performance: important characteristics of both bias and
7KHFKDUWLQ)LJXUH&JLYHVDYLVXDOUHIOHFWLRQRIWKHWRROSHUIRUPDQFHLPSRUWDQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIERWKELDVDQG
scatter are readily apparent. Since the data cloud is generally above the red unit line, it can be concluded that the lLl
VFDWWHUDUHUHDGLO\DSSDUHQW6LQFHWKHGDWDFORXGLVJHQHUDOO\DERYHWKHUHGXQLWOLQHLWFDQEHFRQFOXGHGWKDWWKH,/,
tool generally overestimated the feature depth (by about 5 %) and the spread or scatter in the data seems to be fairly
WRROJHQHUDOO\RYHUHVWLPDWHGWKHIHDWXUHGHSWKE\DERXWDQGWKHVSUHDGRUVFDWWHULQWKHGDWDVHHPVWREHIDLUO\
constant over the entire range of the data. In other situations, clear trends in the bias or scatter or other stratification
FRQVWDQWRYHUWKHHQWLUHUDQJHRIWKHGDWD,QRWKHUVLWXDWLRQVFOHDUWUHQGVLQWKHELDVRUVFDWWHURURWKHUVWUDWLILFDWLRQ
may become quite apparent and this is further discussed in C.3.
PD\EHFRPHTXLWHDSSDUHQWDQGWKLVLVIXUWKHUGLVFXVVHGLQ&

Figure C.2 shows the sizing error as function of the exact validation measurement. (It is assumed that the sizing error
)LJXUH&VKRZVWKHVL]LQJHUURUDVIXQFWLRQRIWKHH[DFWYDOLGDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQW,WLVDVVXPHGWKDWWKHVL]LQJHUURU
of WKH
RI the YDOLGDWLRQ
validation PHDVXUHPHQW
measurement LV
is QHJOLJLEOH
negligible RU
or DW
at OHDVW
least WKUHH
three WLPHV
times VPDOOHU
smaller WKDQ
than the error RQ
WKH HUURU on WKH
the ,/,
lLl PHDVXUHPHQW
measurement.)
Because no negative depths can exist nor be reported by the lLl tool (and quite often a reporting threshold applies), no
%HFDXVHQRQHJDWLYHGHSWKVFDQH[LVWQRUEHUHSRUWHGE\WKH,/,WRRODQGTXLWHRIWHQDUHSRUWLQJWKUHVKROGDSSOLHVQR
data can exist below the red line in Figure 0.1. The sizing errors for smaller defects cannot fall below the red line; the
GDWDFDQH[LVWEHORZWKHUHGOLQHLQ)LJXUH&7KHVL]LQJHUURUVIRUVPDOOHUGHIHFWVFDQQRWIDOOEHORZWKHUHGOLQHWKH
absence of such data needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating tool performance (see C.3).
DEVHQFHRIVXFKGDWDQHHGVWREHWDNHQLQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQZKHQHYDOXDWLQJWRROSHUIRUPDQFHVHH&

When the dataset is sufficiently large, summary statistics can be computed for as-run tool performance. Two different
:KHQWKHGDWDVHWLVVXIILFLHQWO\ODUJHVXPPDU\VWDWLVWLFVFDQEHFRPSXWHGIRUDVUXQWRROSHUIRUPDQFH7ZRGLIIHUHQW
sets of statistics can be computed as follows:
VHWVRIVWDWLVWLFVFDQEHFRPSXWHGDVIROORZV
for given exact size, compute the uncertainty on the lLl measurement;
 IRUJLYHQH[DFWVL]HFRPSXWHWKHXQFHUWDLQW\RQWKH,/,PHDVXUHPHQW
for given lLl measurement, infer the best estimate for the actual feature size.
 IRUJLYHQ,/,PHDVXUHPHQWLQIHUWKHEHVWHVWLPDWHIRUWKHDFWXDOIHDWXUHVL]H

In 0.3.2, the former question is addressed, whereas the latter question is the subject of 0.3.3.
,Q&WKHIRUPHUTXHVWLRQLVDGGUHVVHGZKHUHDVWKHODWWHUTXHVWLRQLVWKHVXEMHFWRI&

C.3 &RPSDULVRQRI,/,DQG)LHOG0HDVXUHPHQWV
& Comparison of ILI and Field Measurements
C.3.1 ,QWURGXFWLRQ
& Introduction

It is common for lLl performance specifications to state sizing accuracy in terms of

,WLVFRPPRQIRU,/,SHUIRUPDQFHVSHFLILFDWLRQVWRVWDWHVL]LQJDFFXUDF\LQWHUPVRI
a tolerance representing a measure of the magnitude or range of the potential sizing error and
 DWROHUDQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDPHDVXUHRIWKHPDJQLWXGHRUUDQJHRIWKHSRWHQWLDOVL]LQJHUURUDQG
a FHUWDLQW\
 D certainty UHSUHVHQWLQJ
representing WKH
the OLNHOLKRRG
likelihood WKDW
that WKH
the VL]LQJ
sizing HUURU
error falls
IDOOV within the UDQJH
ZLWKLQ WKH range SUHVFULEHG
prescribed E\
by WKH
the VWDWHG
stated
tolerance.
WROHUDQFH
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION
163(&7,216 <67(064
SYSTEMS QUALIFICATION
8$/,),&$7,21 
59

%)
(wt

Depth

Ditch

Depth
lLl

Ditch Depth (wt %)

Figure &([DPSOHRI(UURU3ORW
)LJXUH C.2Example of Error Plot

For example, a common statement of metal loss depth measurement accuracy for MFL inspection reads i10 % of
)RUH[DPSOHDFRPPRQVWDWHPHQWRIPHWDOORVVGHSWKPHDVXUHPHQWDFFXUDF\IRU0)/LQVSHFWLRQUHDGVRI
wall for 80 % of the reported anomalies. The statement :10 % of wall establishes the sizing tolerance while 80 %
ZDOOIRURIWKHUHSRUWHGDQRPDOLHV7KHVWDWHPHQWRIZDOOHVWDEOLVKHVWKHVL]LQJWROHUDQFHZKLOH
of the reported anomalies defines the certainty, or likelihood that a reported anomaly will have a sizing error that falls
RIWKHUHSRUWHGDQRPDOLHVGHILQHVWKHFHUWDLQW\RUOLNHOLKRRGWKDWDUHSRUWHGDQRPDO\ZLOOKDYHDVL]LQJHUURUWKDWIDOOV
within the stated tolerance.
ZLWKLQWKHVWDWHGWROHUDQFH

In this context the certainty level can be interpreted as the proportion of reported anomalies having a sizing error that
,QWKLVFRQWH[WWKHFHUWDLQW\OHYHOFDQEHLQWHUSUHWHGDVWKHSURSRUWLRQRIUHSRUWHGDQRPDOLHVKDYLQJDVL]LQJHUURUWKDW
falls within the stated tolerance. Given this interpretation, the stated certainty is effectively a proportion estimate that
IDOOVZLWKLQWKHVWDWHGWROHUDQFH*LYHQWKLVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQWKHVWDWHGFHUWDLQW\LVHIIHFWLYHO\DSURSRUWLRQHVWLPDWHWKDW
can EH
FDQ be DVVHVVHG
assessed XVLQJ
using ILHOG
field PHDVXUHPHQWV
measurements LQin FRPELQDWLRQ
combination with statistical PHWKRGV
ZLWK VWDWLVWLFDO methods that yield D
WKDW \LHOG a PHDVXUH
measure RI
of WKH
the
confidence level that can be associated with the proportion estimate.
FRQILGHQFHOHYHOWKDWFDQEHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHSURSRUWLRQHVWLPDWH

The GLVFXVVLRQ
7KH discussion WKDW
that IROORZV
follows SUHVHQWV
presents D
a PHWKRG
method for assessing WKH
IRU DVVHVVLQJ the FRQILGHQFH
confidence OHYHO
level WKDW
that FDQ
can EH
be DVVRFLDWHG
associated with a
ZLWK D
prescribed sizing accuracy as determined by comparing lLl and field measurements. A discussion of techniques for
SUHVFULEHGVL]LQJDFFXUDF\DVGHWHUPLQHGE\FRPSDULQJ,/,DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWV$GLVFXVVLRQRIWHFKQLTXHVIRU
quantifying field measurement uncertainties and interpreting field and lLl measurements for individual anomalies is
TXDQWLI\LQJILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWXQFHUWDLQWLHVDQGLQWHUSUHWLQJILHOGDQG,/,PHDVXUHPHQWVIRULQGLYLGXDODQRPDOLHVLV
presented first. A method for assessing the lLl sizing certainty based on this information then follow.
SUHVHQWHGILUVW$PHWKRGIRUDVVHVVLQJWKH,/,VL]LQJFHUWDLQW\EDVHGRQWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQWKHQIROORZ

C.3.2 $FFRXQWLQJIRU)LHOG0HDVXUHPHQW8QFHUWDLQW\
& Accounting for Field Measurement Uncertainty

To validate lLl results, reported lLl measurements are often compared to corresponding eld measurements. For a
7RYDOLGDWH,/,UHVXOWVUHSRUWHG,/,PHDVXUHPHQWVDUHRIWHQFRPSDUHGWRFRUUHVSRQGLQJILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWV)RUD
given anomaly the difference between lLl and field measurements is given by
JLYHQDQRPDO\WKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQ,/,DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVLVJLYHQE\

He P
,/, P
mILI mFIELD
),(/'

If the PHDVXUHPHQWXQFHUWDLQWLHVDUH
,IWKH measurement uncertainties are LQGHSHQGHQW
independent DQGUDQGRPWKHVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRIWKHGLIIHUHQFH
and random, the standard deviation of the difference (56H FDQEH
can be
expressed as
H[SUHVVHGDV

2 2
GeH A/(GILI)
,/, + (GFIELD)
 ),(/'

where cm
ZKHUH and oFIELD
,/,DQG represent the standard deviations of the errors in the lLl and field measurements, respectively.
),(/'UHSUHVHQWWKHVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQVRIWKHHUURUVLQWKH,/,DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVUHVSHFWLYHO\

Since the sizing difference 6 reflects the sizing error from both the lLl and the field measurements, it is not appropriate
6LQFHWKHVL]LQJGLIIHUHQFHHUHIOHFWVWKHVL]LQJHUURUIURPERWKWKH,/,DQGWKHILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVLWLVQRWDSSURSULDWH
to compare the sizing error implied by the 6 values obtained for a number of matched field and lLl measurements to
WRFRPSDUHWKHVL]LQJHUURULPSOLHGE\WKHHYDOXHVREWDLQHGIRUDQXPEHURIPDWFKHGILHOGDQG,/,PHDVXUHPHQWVWR
the sizing error that can be inferred from the lLl performance specification. Instead, the sizing error implied by the e
WKHVL]LQJHUURUWKDWFDQEHLQIHUUHGIURPWKH,/,SHUIRUPDQFHVSHFLILFDWLRQ,QVWHDGWKHVL]LQJHUURULPSOLHGE\WKHH
6O
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

values must be compared to the total combined sizing error that reects the both the sizing error implied by the lLl
YDOXHVPXVWEHFRPSDUHGWRWKHWRWDOFRPELQHGVL]LQJHUURUWKDWUHIOHFWVWKHERWKWKHVL]LQJHUURULPSOLHGE\WKH,/,
performance specication and the sizing error inherent in the field measurements.
SHUIRUPDQFHVSHFLILFDWLRQDQGWKHVL]LQJHUURULQKHUHQWLQWKHILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWV

Before comparing lLl and field measurements, both must be expressed in consistent terms. To this end, define the
%HIRUHFRPSDULQJ,/,DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVERWKPXVWEHH[SUHVVHGLQFRQVLVWHQWWHUPV7RWKLVHQGGHILQHWKH
following:
IROORZLQJ

general pipe wall thickness;

Wt= JHQHUDOSLSHZDOOWKLFNQHVV

d = DEVROXWHPHWDOORVV
G absolute metal loss;

Wt1.U = UHPDLQLQJSLSHZDOO
remaining pipe wall;

d/t) = UHODWLYHPHWDOORVVGHSWK
GW relative metal loss depth.

In the case of MFL inspection, lLl depth measurements are reported directly in units of relative metal loss. In contrast,
,QWKHFDVHRI0)/LQVSHFWLRQ,/,GHSWKPHDVXUHPHQWVDUHUHSRUWHGGLUHFWO\LQXQLWVRIUHODWLYHPHWDOORVV,QFRQWUDVW
ultrasonic techniques measure the general wall thickness or the remaining pipe wall directly. Other field techniques
XOWUDVRQLFWHFKQLTXHVPHDVXUHWKHJHQHUDOZDOOWKLFNQHVVRUWKHUHPDLQLQJSLSHZDOOGLUHFWO\2WKHUILHOGWHFKQLTXHV
measure absolute metal loss depth directly. The illustrations that follow demonstrate the process of converting field
PHDVXUHDEVROXWHPHWDOORVVGHSWKGLUHFWO\7KHLOOXVWUDWLRQVWKDWIROORZGHPRQVWUDWHWKHSURFHVVRIFRQYHUWLQJILHOG
measurements WR
PHDVXUHPHQWV to UHODWLYH
relative PHWDO
metal ORVV
loss GHSWK
depth, LQFOXGLQJ
including WKH
the SURSDJDWLRQ
propagation RI
of WKH
the HUURUV
errors DVVRFLDWHG
associated with the RULJLQDO
ZLWK WKH original
measurement instruments through to the calculated relative wall loss.
PHDVXUHPHQWLQVWUXPHQWVWKURXJKWRWKHFDOFXODWHGUHODWLYHZDOOORVV

Relative metal loss depth can be obtained from ultrasonic measurements as

5HODWLYHPHWDOORVVGHSWKFDQEHREWDLQHGIURPXOWUDVRQLFPHDVXUHPHQWVDV

Wtt,
W
G W U
(d/ t ) ),(/'87
FIELD,UT
Wt

The general wall thickness and the remaining wall at the anomaly would be measured directly and independently,
7KHJHQHUDOZDOOWKLFNQHVVDQGWKHUHPDLQLQJZDOODWWKHDQRPDO\ZRXOGEHPHDVXUHGGLUHFWO\DQGLQGHSHQGHQWO\
perhaps with different instruments. Applying measurement error propagation methods for independent and random
SHUKDSVZLWKGLIIHUHQWLQVWUXPHQWV$SSO\LQJPHDVXUHPHQWHUURUSURSDJDWLRQPHWKRGVIRULQGHSHQGHQWDQGUDQGRP
measurements yields a standard deviation on the error in relative metal loss depth given by
PHDVXUHPHQWV\LHOGVDVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRQWKHHUURULQUHODWLYHPHWDOORVVGHSWKJLYHQE\

2
1 WU 
G + (Ctr)
 J  (G)W 2  2
G W
(d/t)FIELD,UT
),(/'87 Wt (tr)
Wt W
U

where
ZKHUH otand
W DQG represent WKH
 UHSUHVHQW the VWDQGDUG
standard GHYLDWLRQ
deviation LQ
in WKH
the PHDVXUHPHQW
measurement HUURU
error DVVRFLDWHG
associated with the JHQHUDO
ZLWK WKH general wall
ZDOO
CtrWU
thickness DQG
WKLFNQHVV and UHPDLQLQJ
remaining wall thickness, UHVSHFWLYHO\
ZDOO WKLFNQHVV respectively. ,I
If QR
no JHQHUDO
general wall thickness PHDVXUHPHQW
ZDOO WKLFNQHVV measurement LV is DYDLODEOH
available, the
WKH
nominal wall thickness can be used, and the associated fabrication tolerance could be used to derive .
QRPLQDOZDOOWKLFNQHVVFDQEHXVHGDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGIDEULFDWLRQWROHUDQFHFRXOGEHXVHGWRGHULYH

Since measurement errors can be assumed to be normally distributed, the calculated standard deviation of the field
6LQFHPHDVXUHPHQWHUURUVFDQEHDVVXPHGWREHQRUPDOO\GLVWULEXWHGWKHFDOFXODWHGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRIWKHILHOG
measurement HUURU
PHDVXUHPHQW error FDQ
can EH
be FRQYHUWHG
converted LQWR
into D
a WROHUDQFH
tolerance DW
at D
a GHVLUHG
desired FHUWDLQW\
certainty OHYHO
level EDVHG
based RQ
on the properties RI
WKH SURSHUWLHV of the
WKH
standard normal distribution. For example, if the field ultrasonic instrument sizing uncertainty is known in terms of the
VWDQGDUGQRUPDOGLVWULEXWLRQ)RUH[DPSOHLIWKHILHOGXOWUDVRQLFLQVWUXPHQWVL]LQJXQFHUWDLQW\LVNQRZQLQWHUPVRIWKH
standard GHYLDWLRQ
VWDQGDUG deviation RQ
on VL]LQJ error, WKH
sizing HUURU the FRUUHVSRQGLQJ
corresponding VL]LQJ
sizing WROHUDQFH
tolerance DW
at WKH
the 
80 % FHUWDLQW\ level LV
certainty OHYHO is REWDLQHG
obtained E\
by
multiplying WKH
PXOWLSO\LQJ the VWDQGDUG
standard GHYLDWLRQ
deviation E\
by 
1.28. 6LPLODUO\
Similarly, WKH
the WROHUDQFH
tolerance DW
at the 90% FHUWDLQW\
WKH  certainty OHYHO
level LV
is REWDLQHG
obtained E\
by
multiplying the standard deviation by 1.64.
PXOWLSO\LQJWKHVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQE\

Other field techniques (e.g. pit gauge, depth micrometer, or laser scanner) measure absolute metal loss depth directly
2WKHUILHOGWHFKQLTXHVHJSLWJDXJHGHSWKPLFURPHWHURUODVHUVFDQQHUPHDVXUHDEVROXWHPHWDOORVVGHSWKGLUHFWO\
while general wall thickness in the area would be measured by ultrasonic techniques. Relative metal loss depth is
ZKLOHJHQHUDOZDOOWKLFNQHVVLQWKHDUHDZRXOGEHPHDVXUHGE\XOWUDVRQLFWHFKQLTXHV5HODWLYHPHWDOORVVGHSWKLV
found from absolute depth and general wall thickness by
IRXQGIURPDEVROXWHGHSWKDQGJHQHUDOZDOOWKLFNQHVVE\

Gd
G W
(07 t)FIELD,AD
),(/'$' _
W
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION
163(&7,216 <67(064
SYSTEMS QUALIFICATION
8$/,),&$7,21 
61

The associated standard deviation on relative depth is

7KHDVVRFLDWHGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRQUHODWLYHGHSWKLV

1 Gd 2
C(d/t)FIELDAD   (Gt)W 2 
+(Gd)
2

EW 2W
G W G
),(/'$'

where odGUHSUHVHQWVWKHVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQLQWKHDEVROXWHGHSWKPHDVXUHPHQW
ZKHUH represents the standard deviation in the absolute depth measurement.

Again, since measurement errors can be assumed to be normally distributed, the calculated standard deviation can
$JDLQVLQFHPHDVXUHPHQWHUURUVFDQEHDVVXPHGWREHQRUPDOO\GLVWULEXWHGWKHFDOFXODWHGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQFDQ
be converted into a tolerance at the desired certainty level based on the properties of the standard normal distribution.
EHFRQYHUWHGLQWRDWROHUDQFHDWWKHGHVLUHGFHUWDLQW\OHYHOEDVHGRQWKHSURSHUWLHVRIWKHVWDQGDUGQRUPDOGLVWULEXWLRQ

Once the field measurement error has been quantified and transformed into a tolerance at a certainty level matching
2QFHWKHILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWHUURUKDVEHHQTXDQWLILHGDQGWUDQVIRUPHGLQWRDWROHUDQFHDWDFHUWDLQW\OHYHOPDWFKLQJ
that of the lLl specification, the difference between the relative depth measurements is given by
WKDWRIWKH,/,VSHFLILFDWLRQWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHUHODWLYHGHSWKPHDVXUHPHQWVLVJLYHQE\

He G W ,/, (d/t)FIELD
(d/t)ILI_ G W ),(/'

$Q expression for

An H[SUHVVLRQ the VWDQGDUG
IRU WKH standard GHYLDWLRQ
deviation RI this GLIIHUHQFH
of WKLV difference oeH was provided HDUOLHU
ZDV SURYLGHG earlier. +RZHYHU since the
However, VLQFH lLl
WKH ,/,
specifications are most often stated at a specific certainty level and not as a standard deviation, it is convenient to
VSHFLILFDWLRQVDUHPRVWRIWHQVWDWHGDWDVSHFLILFFHUWDLQW\OHYHODQGQRWDVDVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQLWLVFRQYHQLHQWWR
approximate the combined tolerance on the difference in depth measurements, Becomb,
DSSUR[LPDWHWKHFRPELQHGWROHUDQFHRQWKHGLIIHUHQFHLQGHSWKPHDVXUHPHQWV that reects both the specied
HFRPEWKDWUHIOHFWVERWKWKHVSHFLILHG
lLl measurement uncertainty and the known or calculated field measurement uncertainty as
,/,PHDVXUHPHQWXQFHUWDLQW\DQGWKHNQRZQRUFDOFXODWHGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWXQFHUWDLQW\DV

 
H FRPE z K/[8(d/t)ILI]2
8ecomb G W ,/,  G W ),(/'
+ [5(d/t)FIELD]2

where 6(a/t)ILI
ZKHUH and 5(d/t)F1ELD
G W ,/, DQG represent the tolerance on the relative depth measurements associated with the lLl
G W ),(/' UHSUHVHQWWKHWROHUDQFHRQWKHUHODWLYHGHSWKPHDVXUHPHQWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH,/,
and eld measurements, both at the certainty level associated with the specied lLl tolerance.
DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVERWKDWWKHFHUWDLQW\OHYHODVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHVSHFLILHG,/,WROHUDQFH

If, for example, the specified lLl certainty is 80 %, the tolerance on the difference in depth measurements is given by
,IIRUH[DPSOHWKHVSHFLILHG,/,FHUWDLQW\LVWKHWROHUDQFHRQWKHGLIIHUHQFHLQGHSWKPHDVXUHPHQWVLVJLYHQE\

 
H
6ecomb
FRPE
z G W
,\/[5(d/ZL)ILI]2
,/,  
+ [1.286(d/t)FIELD]2
G W
),(/'

where
ZKHUH represents WKH
UHSUHVHQWV the VWDQGDUG
standard GHYLDWLRQ
deviation RQ
on the relative GHSWK
WKH UHODWLYH depth PHDVXUHPHQWV
measurements REWDLQHG
obtained XVLQJ
using field
ILHOG
(SM/0mm
G W
),(/'
techniques.
WHFKQLTXHV

C.3.3 ,QWHUSUHWLQJ,/,DQG)LHOG0HDVXUHPHQWV
& Interpreting |Ll and Field Measurements

$QLQGLYLGXDO,/,PHDVXUHPHQWFDQWKHQEHFRQVLGHUHGRXWRIWROHUDQFHLI
An individual lLl measurement can then be considered out of tolerance if

Iel
H > Secomb
H FRPE

2WKHUZLVHWKHPHDVXUHPHQWLVZLWKLQWROHUDQFH
OthenNise the measurement is within tolerance.

Table &
7DEOH 0.1 FRQWDLQV
contains DQ
an H[DPSOH
example FRPSDULVRQ
comparison RI
of 0)/
MFL PHDVXUHPHQWV
measurements DQG and XOWUDVRQLF
ultrasonic field measurements XVLQJ
ILHOG PHDVXUHPHQWV using the
WKH
methods SUHVHQWHG
PHWKRGV presented DERYH
above. )LJXUH
Figure &
0.3 VKRZV
shows Da XQLW\
unity SORW
plot RI
of the results from
WKH UHVXOWV IURP the in 7DEOH
analysis LQ
WKH DQDO\VLV Table 
1, LOOXVWUDWLQJ
illustrating
graphically the tolerances on both lLl and field measurements. In interpreting the figure, if the sizing tolerance ellipse
JUDSKLFDOO\WKHWROHUDQFHVRQERWK,/,DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWV,QLQWHUSUHWLQJWKHILJXUHLIWKHVL]LQJWROHUDQFHHOOLSVH
for any given point touches or intersects the unity line, the lLl measurement is considered within tolerance.
IRUDQ\JLYHQSRLQWWRXFKHVRULQWHUVHFWVWKHXQLW\OLQHWKH,/,PHDVXUHPHQWLVFRQVLGHUHGZLWKLQWROHUDQFH

Assessing the Certainty Associated with the ILI Sizing Tolerance

C.3.4 $VVHVVLQJWKH&HUWDLQW\$VVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH,/,6L]LQJ7ROHUDQFH
&

The process of obtaining field measurements and comparing the differences between field and lLl measurements for
7KHSURFHVVRIREWDLQLQJILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVDQGFRPSDULQJWKHGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQILHOGDQG,/,PHDVXUHPHQWVIRU
individual DQRPDOLHV
LQGLYLGXDO anomalies WR
to WKH
the FRPELQHG
combined PHDVXUHPHQW
measurement WROHUDQFH
tolerance GHVFULEHG
described DERYH
above FDQ
can EH
be YLHZHG
viewed DV
as DQ
an H[HUFLVH
exercise LQ
in
62
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

Table C.1Example: Agreement Test of Two Independent Sets of Measurements

7DEOH&([DPSOH$JUHHPHQW7HVWRI7ZR,QGHSHQGHQW6HWVRI0HDVXUHPHQWV

ILI Report
,/,5HSRUW Ultrasonic Field Investigation
8OWUDVRQLF)LHOG,QYHVWLJDWLRQ Comparison
&RPSDULVRQ

G W
(d/t)ILI
,/, G W
5(d/t)ILI
,/, Wt GtW WtrU Ctr
W Gd G W
(d/t)FIELD
),(/' 6(d/t)FIELD
G W
),(/'
H
lel H
8ecomb
FRPE
U

(%)
 (%)
 (mm)
PP (mm)
PP (mm)
PP (mm)
PP (mm)
PP (%)
 (%)
 (%)
 (%)


meas
PHDV spec
VSHF meas
PHDV spec
VSHF meas
PHDV spec
VSHF calc
FDOF calc
FDOF calc
FDOF calc
FDOF calc
FDOF In?
,Q"

42
 10
 6.4
 0.15
 3.0
 0.25
 3.4
 53.1
 4.1
 11.1
 11.3
 Yes
<HV

57
 12
 8.2
 0.15
 2.5
 0.25
 5.7
 69.5
 3.1
 12.5
 12.6
 Yes
<HV

21
 5
 4.9
 0.15
 4.3
 0.25
 0.6
 12.2
 5.8
 8.8
 8.9
 Yes
<HV

33
 10
 6.3
 0.15
 4.0
 0.25
 2.3
 36.5
 4.2
 3.5
 11.4
 Yes
<HV

33
 10
 6.3
 0.15
 5.8
 0.25
 0.5
 7.9
 4.5
 25.1
 11.6
 No
1R

100

90 -

80

70

5g? 60 -
5
E:

50 _
5
O.
(D
D
E
.9 40 -
LL

30

20 -

10 -

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
|L| Depth (% of wall)

Figure &([DPSOH8QLW\3ORWRI7ZR,QGHSHQGHQW6HWVRI0HDVXUHPHQWV
)LJXUH C.3Example: Unity Plot of Two Independent Sets of Measurements
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION
163(&7,216 <67(064
SYSTEMS QUALIFICATION
8$/,),&$7,21 
63

sampling IURP
VDPSOLQJ from D
a ODUJH
large SRSXODWLRQ
population RI
of ,/,
lLl PHDVXUHPHQWV
measurements WR
to HVWLPDWH
estimate D
a SURSRUWLRQ
proportion, LQ
in this case WKH
WKLV FDVH the SURSRUWLRQ
proportion RI
of
measurements falling within the prescribed tolerance.
PHDVXUHPHQWVIDOOLQJZLWKLQWKHSUHVFULEHGWROHUDQFH

In WKLV
,Q this FRQWH[W
context, WKH
the SURSRUWLRQ
proportion RIof ,/,
|L| PHDVXUHPHQWV
measurements falling
IDOOLQJ within tolerance, RU
ZLWKLQ WROHUDQFH or WKH
the SUREDELOLW\
probability RI
of REWDLQLQJ
obtaining D
a
measurement within
PHDVXUHPHQW tolerance IRU
ZLWKLQ WROHUDQFH for DQ\
any JLYHQ
given DQRPDO\
anomaly, LV
is H[SHFWHG
expected WR
to EH
be HTXDO
equal WR
to WKH
the VSHFLILHG
specified ,/,
lLl PHDVXUHPHQW
measurement
certainty p.
FHUWDLQW\ S An estimate RI
$Q HVWLPDWH of WKH
the DFWXDO
actual FHUWDLQW\
certainty FDQ
can EH
be REWDLQHG
obtained from
IURP the sampling SURFHVV
WKH VDPSOLQJ process LH
(i.e. the evaluation RI
WKH HYDOXDWLRQ of
matched |L| and eld measurements), and it can then be compared to the specified certainty to assess the confidence
PDWFKHG,/,DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVDQGLWFDQWKHQEHFRPSDUHGWRWKHVSHFLILHGFHUWDLQW\WRDVVHVVWKHFRQILGHQFH
level that can be associated with the specified performance.
OHYHOWKDWFDQEHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHVSHFLILHGSHUIRUPDQFH

Assume for the purpose of validating the lLl sizing accuracy claim that a sample of n field measurements is gathered.
$VVXPHIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIYDOLGDWLQJWKH,/,VL]LQJDFFXUDF\FODLPWKDWDVDPSOHRIQILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVLVJDWKHUHG
Assume IXUWKHU
$VVXPH further WKDW
that X of WKRVH
; RI those PHDVXUHPHQWV
measurements DUH
are within tolerance DV
ZLWKLQ WROHUDQFH as GHVFULEHG
described DERYH
above. 7KHQ
Then DQ
an HVWLPDWH
estimate RI
of WKH
the
actual certainty, or proportion of anomalies within tolerance, is
DFWXDOFHUWDLQW\RUSURSRUWLRQRIDQRPDOLHVZLWKLQWROHUDQFHLV

;
13S 
Qsix

Because [9
%HFDXVH S  LV
is GHWHUPLQHG
determined IURP
from D
a VPDOO
small VDPSOH
sample WDNHQ
taken from the ODUJHU
IURP WKH larger SRSXODWLRQ
population RI
of UHSRUWHG
reported DQRPDOLHV
anomalies, there is
WKHUH LV
sampling uncertainty associated with the proportion estimate. There are many methods available for bounding WKH
VDPSOLQJXQFHUWDLQW\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHSURSRUWLRQHVWLPDWH7KHUHDUHPDQ\PHWKRGVDYDLODEOHIRUERXQGLQJ the
uncertainty in an estimated proportion (Brown, Cal, and DasGupta, 2001 ). The traditional approach, sometimes called
XQFHUWDLQW\LQDQHVWLPDWHGSURSRUWLRQ%URZQ&DLDQG'DV*XSWD7KHWUDGLWLRQDODSSURDFKVRPHWLPHVFDOOHG
the exact approach, is based on direct application of the binomial distribution and involves inverting the socalled
WKHH[DFWDSSURDFKLVEDVHGRQGLUHFWDSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHELQRPLDOGLVWULEXWLRQDQGLQYROYHVLQYHUWLQJWKHVRFDOOHG
binomial test (Clopper and Pearson, 1934). However, this method has been shown to produce overly conservative
ELQRPLDOWHVW&ORSSHUDQG3HDUVRQ+RZHYHUWKLVPHWKRGKDVEHHQVKRZQWRSURGXFHRYHUO\FRQVHUYDWLYH
estimates of the uncertainty bounds for some combinations of p and n. In contrast, alternative approximate methods
HVWLPDWHVRIWKHXQFHUWDLQW\ERXQGVIRUVRPHFRPELQDWLRQVRISDQGQ,QFRQWUDVWDOWHUQDWLYHDSSUR[LPDWHPHWKRGV
have been shown to be more accurate (i.e. less conservative) than the so-called exact method (Agresti and Coull,
KDYHEHHQVKRZQWREHPRUHDFFXUDWHLHOHVVFRQVHUYDWLYHWKDQWKHVRFDOOHGH[DFWPHWKRG$JUHVWLDQG&RXOO
1998). For its accuracy and simplicity, the Agresti-Coull method is employed in the discussion that follows.
)RULWVDFFXUDF\DQGVLPSOLFLW\WKH$JUHVWL&RXOOPHWKRGLVHPSOR\HGLQWKHGLVFXVVLRQWKDWIROORZV

Given X measurements within tolerance from n total measurements, an upper bound estimate of the actual proportion
*LYHQ;PHDVXUHPHQWVZLWKLQWROHUDQFHIURPQWRWDOPHDVXUHPHQWVDQXSSHUERXQGHVWLPDWHRIWKHDFWXDOSURSRUWLRQ
of measurements within tolerance, at a confidence level 0c,FDQEHHVWLPDWHGXVLQJWKHIROORZLQJH[SUHVVLRQ
RIPHDVXUHPHQWVZLWKLQWROHUDQFHDWDFRQILGHQFHOHYHO can be estimated using the following expression:

S S 
+ =
S  S
XSSHU
[gupper [3 
Zoc w
Qn

ZKHUH
where


Q17 Qn  =
+ Z:

DQG
and

=
ZZ
X
;
+ 
~ 2
S
p 
N
Qn

and Z0,LVWKH
DQG= is the or SHUFHQWLOHRIDVWDQGDUGQRUPDOGLVWULEXWLRQ
percentile of a standard normal distribution.

NOTE 
127(

for
 a 90 % confidence level, or = =
IRUDFRQILGHQFHOHYHO 0.90, Z0c = DQG = = 
1.28, and Zj
1.64;
for
 a 95 % confidence level, or = =
IRUDFRQILGHQFHOHYHO 0.95, Z0, = DQG
1.64, and Z= = 

2.69;
for
 a 97.5 % condence level, or = =
IRUDFRQILGHQFHOHYHO 0.975, Z0, = DQG
1.96, and Z= = 

3.84;
for
 a 99 % confidence level, or = =
IRUDFRQILGHQFHOHYHO 0.99, Z0, = DQG = = 
2.33, and z:
5.43.
64
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

For example, given the above, a single expression for the 95 % confidence upper bound on the lLl certainty is given
)RUH[DPSOHJLYHQWKHDERYHDVLQJOHH[SUHVVLRQIRUWKHFRQILGHQFHXSSHUERXQGRQWKH,/,FHUWDLQW\LVJLYHQ
by
E\

;   ;  
  
A X
;+ 
1.35
1 [X+1.35](1_[X+1.35
Qn  + 
2.69 Qn + 
2.69
. 64 
pupper
S XSSHU  
[nQ +  2.69] + 
Qn  + 
2.69

ZKHUH13S UHSUHVHQWVWKHEHVWHVWLPDWHRIWKHSURSRUWLRQRIZLWKLQWROHUDQFH,/,PHDVXUHPHQWVLQWKHVPDOOVDPSOHRI
where represents the best estimate of the proportion of within-tolerance lLl measurements in the small sample of
lLl measurements with corresponding field measurements, [9mm
,/,PHDVXUHPHQWVZLWKFRUUHVSRQGLQJILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWV S XSSHU UHSUHVHQWVDQHVWLPDWHZLWKFRQILGHQFH
represents an estimate, with confidence or,RIWKH
of the
upper bound on the proportion of within-tolerance lLl measurements in the larger population of reported anomalies as
XSSHUERXQGRQWKHSURSRUWLRQRIZLWKLQWROHUDQFH,/,PHDVXUHPHQWVLQWKHODUJHUSRSXODWLRQRIUHSRUWHGDQRPDOLHVDV
suggested by the performance observed in the smaller sample.
VXJJHVWHGE\WKHSHUIRUPDQFHREVHUYHGLQWKHVPDOOHUVDPSOH

)RUDJLYHQVDPSOHRI,/,DQGILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVWKHHVWLPDWHGXSSHUERXQGRQ,/,FHUWDLQW\ S XSSHU FDQEHFRPSDUHG

For a given sample of lLl and field measurements, the estimated upper bound on lLl certainty fame, can be compared
against the specied certainty p as follows.
DJDLQVWWKHVSHFLILHGFHUWDLQW\SDVIROORZV

 ,I S XSSHU p,
lf upp,,< the field
S  WKH measurements VXJJHVW
ILHOG PHDVXUHPHQWV suggest WKDW
that, with confidence OHYHO
ZLWK FRQILGHQFH level the lLl SHUIRUPDQFH
WKH ,/, is worse
performance LV ZRUVH than
WKDQ
specified.
VSHFLILHG

 ,I S XSSHU p,
lf I3upper2 the lLl specification remains a plausible description of performance for the larger population of lLl
S WKH,/,VSHFLILFDWLRQUHPDLQVDSODXVLEOHGHVFULSWLRQRISHUIRUPDQFHIRUWKHODUJHUSRSXODWLRQRI,/,
measurements. An
PHDVXUHPHQWV analysis DFFRUGLQJ
$Q DQDO\VLV according WR
to WKH
the PHWKRGV
methods RI
of &
C.3 LV
is HQFRXUDJHG
encouraged LI
if D
a SUHFLVH
precise VWDWHPHQW
statement RI
of DFWXDO
actual
performance is required.
SHUIRUPDQFHLVUHTXLUHG

In the examples that follow, assume that the |L| tolerances were stated at 80 % certainty.
,QWKHH[DPSOHVWKDWIROORZDVVXPHWKDWWKH,/,WROHUDQFHVZHUHVWDWHGDWFHUWDLQW\

EXAMPLE 1
(;$03/(

Assume
$VVXPHQ n = ILHOGPHDVXUHPHQWVDUHDYDLODEOHIRU,/,YDOLGDWLRQ$VVXPHWKDW;
10 field measurements are available for lLlAvalidation. Assume thatX = PHDVXUHPHQWVIDOOZLWKLQWROHUDQFH\LHOGLQJ
5 measurements fall within tolerance, yielding
=
p 0.50. The 95 % confidence upper bound for p
S  7KHFRQILGHQFHXSSHUERXQGIRU S LV S XSSHU  = 6LQFH
is pupper 0.73. Since pupper is less than p = LWFDQEHVWDWHGWKDWWKH,/,
S XSSHU LVOHVVWKDQS 0.80 it can be stated that the lLl
performance is worse than specified with 95 % confidence.
SHUIRUPDQFHLVZRUVHWKDQVSHFLILHGZLWKFRQILGHQFH

EXAMPLE 2
(;$03/(

Assume
$VVXPHQ = 25 field measurements DUH available IRU
are DYDLODEOH for ,/,
lLl YDOLGDWLRQ
validation. Assume that X =  PHDVXUHPHQWV
1%} measurements fall
IDOO within
ZLWKLQ tolerance,
I}   ILHOG PHDVXUHPHQWV $VVXPHWKDW; WROHUDQFH
yielding p
\LHOGLQJ S  =  
0.72. 7KH
The 
95 % FRQILGHQFH
confidence XSSHU bound for
upper ERXQG S  LV
IRU p S XSSHU  =  
is pupper 0.84. 6LQFH S XSSHU  LV
Since pupper is JUHDWHU WKDQ 19S = 
greater than 0.80 WKH
the ,/,
lLl
performance specification remains a plausible description of performance for the population of lLl measurements.
SHUIRUPDQFHVSHFLILFDWLRQUHPDLQVDSODXVLEOHGHVFULSWLRQRISHUIRUPDQFHIRUWKHSRSXODWLRQRI,/,PHDVXUHPHQWV

C.4 (VWLPDWLQJ$VUXQ7RRO3HUIRUPDQFHIURP)LHOG9DOLGDWLRQ'DWD
& Estimating As-run Tool Performance from Field Validation Data
C.4.1 &DOFXODWLQJ7RRO3HUIRUPDQFH6WDWLVWLFV
& Calculating Tool Performance Statistics

In this section, it is assumed that the uncertainty on the ditch size negligible relative to the lLl sizing uncertainty (i.e.
,QWKLVVHFWLRQLWLVDVVXPHGWKDWWKHXQFHUWDLQW\RQWKHGLWFKVL]HQHJOLJLEOHUHODWLYHWRWKH,/,VL]LQJXQFHUWDLQW\LH
its standard deviation is at least three times smaller). This would be representative of a repeated pull test with known
LWVVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQLVDWOHDVWWKUHHWLPHVVPDOOHU7KLVZRXOGEHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIDUHSHDWHGSXOOWHVWZLWKNQRZQ
corrosion features. Quite often, one assumes that a normal distribution applies to the sizing error and that the sizing
FRUURVLRQIHDWXUHV4XLWHRIWHQRQHDVVXPHVWKDWDQRUPDOGLVWULEXWLRQDSSOLHVWRWKHVL]LQJHUURUDQGWKDWWKHVL]LQJ
error statistics are independent of the actual feature size. In that case a calculation of average sizing error and its
HUURUVWDWLVWLFVDUHLQGHSHQGHQWRIWKHDFWXDOIHDWXUHVL]H,QWKDWFDVHDFDOFXODWLRQRIDYHUDJHVL]LQJHUURUDQGLWV
standard deviation is straightfonNard, although in many cases actually incorrect. Because of the non-negativity of both
VWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQLVVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGDOWKRXJKLQPDQ\FDVHVDFWXDOO\LQFRUUHFW%HFDXVHRIWKHQRQQHJDWLYLW\RIERWK
the lLl size and the ditch size, the maximum error is bounded:
WKH,/,VL]HDQGWKHGLWFKVL]HWKHPD[LPXPHUURULVERXQGHG

the reported |L| value is an upper bound on the sizing error (defined as lLl ditch),
 WKHUHSRUWHG,/,YDOXHLVDQXSSHUERXQGRQWKHVL]LQJHUURUGHILQHGDV,/,GLWFK

the lLl reporting threshold minus the ditch depth is a lower bound for the sizing error.
 WKH,/,UHSRUWLQJWKUHVKROGPLQXVWKHGLWFKGHSWKLVDORZHUERXQGIRUWKHVL]LQJHUURU

When the cloud representing the recorded validation data stays far away from these boundaries, a straightfonNard
:KHQWKHFORXGUHSUHVHQWLQJWKHUHFRUGHGYDOLGDWLRQGDWDVWD\VIDUDZD\IURPWKHVHERXQGDULHVDVWUDLJKWIRUZDUG
calculation of mean and standard deviation of the sizing error is justified. However, when the data do encroach upon
FDOFXODWLRQRIPHDQDQGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRIWKHVL]LQJHUURULVMXVWLILHG+RZHYHUZKHQWKHGDWDGRHQFURDFKXSRQ
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION
163(&7,216 <67(064
SYSTEMS QUALIFICATION
8$/,),&$7,21 
65

these ERXQGDULHV
WKHVH boundaries, DSSURSULDWH
appropriate FHQVRULQJ
censoring PXVW
must EH
be DFFRXQWHG
accounted for before PHDQLQJIXO
IRU EHIRUH meaningful VXPPDU\
summary VWDWLVWLFV
statistics FDQ
can EH
be
calculated.
FDOFXODWHG

One SRVVLEOH
2QH possible PHWKRG
method WR
to DFFRXQW
account IRU
for WKH
the FHQVRULQJ
censoring LV
is EDVHG
based RQ
on PD[LPXPOLNHOLKRRG estimation RI
maximum-likelihood HVWLPDWLRQ of the sizing HUURU
WKH VL]LQJ error
distribution parameters. Consider the example given in Figure 0.1: the lLl reporting threshold of 5 wt % causes only
GLVWULEXWLRQSDUDPHWHUV&RQVLGHUWKHH[DPSOHJLYHQLQ)LJXUH&WKH,/,UHSRUWLQJWKUHVKROGRIZWFDXVHVRQO\
overestimations to be recorded for the very shallow depths. Because quite often there are many more shallow pits
RYHUHVWLPDWLRQVWREHUHFRUGHGIRUWKHYHU\VKDOORZGHSWKV%HFDXVHTXLWHRIWHQWKHUHDUHPDQ\PRUHVKDOORZSLWV
than deeper ones, this skews the estimates for the distribution parameters. For the example given in Figure 0.2 the
WKDQGHHSHURQHVWKLVVNHZVWKHHVWLPDWHVIRUWKHGLVWULEXWLRQSDUDPHWHUV)RUWKHH[DPSOHJLYHQLQ)LJXUH&WKH
comparison of calculated distribution parameters is as follows.
FRPSDULVRQRIFDOFXODWHGGLVWULEXWLRQSDUDPHWHUVLVDVIROORZV

Based on S_traightforward
%DVHGRQ6WUDLJKWIRUZDUG MLE Estimate Accounting
0/((VWLPDWH$FFRXQWLQJ
Parameter
3DUDPHWHU
Moment Estimate (Incorrect)
0RPHQW(VWLPDWHLQFRUUHFW for Slzmg Error Censorlng
IRU6L]LQJ(UURU&HQVRULQJ
Mean
0HDQ 4.9 wt %
ZW 0.6 wt %
ZW
Standard deviation
6WDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQ 9.8 wt %
ZW 12.3 wt %
ZW
80 % condence bounds
FRQILGHQFHERXQGV $12.6 wt %
ZW $15.8 wt %
ZW

The DSSDUHQW
7KH apparent RYHUHVWLPDWLRQ
overestimation ELDV
bias LV
is FRPSOHWHO\
completely UHPRYHG
removed DQG and WKH
the VWDQGDUG
standard GHYLDWLRQ
deviation LV
is DFWXDOO\
actually TXLWH
quite D
a ELW
bit ODUJHU
larger.
Although the numerical values differ from case to case, in general it can be concluded that the average sizing error is
$OWKRXJKWKHQXPHULFDOYDOXHVGLIIHUIURPFDVHWRFDVHLQJHQHUDOLWFDQEHFRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHDYHUDJHVL]LQJHUURULV
generally ORZHU
JHQHUDOO\ lower ZKHQ
when FHQVRULQJ
censoring LV is SURSHUO\
properly DFFRXQWHG
accounted for (thresholding HIIHFWV
IRU WKUHVKROGLQJ effects FXW
cut RII
off D
a ORW
lot RI
of XQGHUVL]LQJ
undersizing GDWD
data),
whereas WKH
ZKHUHDV the VWDQGDUG
standard GHYLDWLRQ
deviation LVis JHQHUDOO\ increased E\
generally LQFUHDVHG by 1 wt % WR
ZW 2 wt % WKH
to ZW (the DFWXDO
actual YDOXH
value RI
of WKH
the DGMXVWPHQW
adjustment
depends RQ
GHSHQGV on WKH
the W\SLFDO
typical VL]H
size RI
of WKH
the IHDWXUHV
features; WKH
the HIIHFW
effect RI
of FHQVRULQJ
censoring LV
is PRUH
more SURQRXQFHG
pronounced LI if WKHUH are PDQ\
there DUH many VPDOO
small
features).
IHDWXUHV

With the MLE-based estimation method described above, it is straightfonNard to estimate the parameters for models
:LWKWKH0/(EDVHGHVWLPDWLRQPHWKRGGHVFULEHGDERYHLWLVVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGWRHVWLPDWHWKHSDUDPHWHUVIRUPRGHOV
where the mean and standard deviation are dependent on the depth. Because there are only about 100 data points in
ZKHUHWKHPHDQDQGVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQDUHGHSHQGHQWRQWKHGHSWK%HFDXVHWKHUHDUHRQO\DERXWGDWDSRLQWVLQ
the dataset in Figure 0.1, it may be difficult to justify a more sophisticated sizing error model. However, the statistical
WKHGDWDVHWLQ)LJXUH&LWPD\EHGLIILFXOWWRMXVWLI\DPRUHVRSKLVWLFDWHGVL]LQJHUURUPRGHO+RZHYHUWKHVWDWLVWLFDO
significance of model parameters can be assessed using confidence intervals or bootstrapping.
VLJQLILFDQFHRIPRGHOSDUDPHWHUVFDQEHDVVHVVHGXVLQJFRQILGHQFHLQWHUYDOVRUERRWVWUDSSLQJ

All of the above is strictly speaking valid only for the case where repeated pull tests are performed on specic defects.
$OORIWKHDERYHLVVWULFWO\VSHDNLQJYDOLGRQO\IRUWKHFDVHZKHUHUHSHDWHGSXOOWHVWVDUHSHUIRUPHGRQVSHFLILFGHIHFWV
Although WKLV
$OWKRXJK this PD\
may EH
be DFKLHYDEOH
achievable GXULQJ
during D
a SXOOWHVW
pull-test VFHQDULR
scenario LW
it LV
is QRW
not WKHFDVH
the case GXULQJ
during H[FDYDWLRQV
excavations for lLl validation
IRU ,/, YDOLGDWLRQ
purposes.
SXUSRVHV

C.4.2 (VWLPDWLQJ$FWXDO6L]HIURP,/,5HSRUWHG9DOXH
& Estimating Actual Size from |Ll Reported Value

Although tool accuracy is established as a measure for the scatter in the lLl-reported feature depths for given exact
$OWKRXJKWRRODFFXUDF\LVHVWDEOLVKHGDVDPHDVXUHIRUWKHVFDWWHULQWKH,/,UHSRUWHGIHDWXUHGHSWKVIRUJLYHQH[DFW
anomaly depths (see Figure 0.2), the inverse problem is of more practical interest. In this case a best estimate and
DQRPDO\GHSWKVVHH)LJXUH&WKHLQYHUVHSUREOHPLVRIPRUHSUDFWLFDOLQWHUHVW,QWKLVFDVHDEHVWHVWLPDWHDQG
scatter band for the true anomaly depth must be inferred from the reported feature depth (Figure 0.4).
VFDWWHUEDQGIRUWKHWUXHDQRPDO\GHSWKPXVWEHLQIHUUHGIURPWKHUHSRUWHGIHDWXUHGHSWK)LJXUH&

The VL]LQJ
7KH sizing HUURU
error LV
is FRPSXWHG
computed DVas WKH
the GLIIHUHQFH
difference EHWZHHQ
between WKH
the PHDVXUHG
measured DQG
and WUXH
true VL]H m = G
size: P d+ e, where
 H m LV
ZKHUH P is the
WKH
measured size, d is the true size, and e is the sizing error. If the error distribution 6 has a zero mean, the mean value
PHDVXUHGVL]HGLVWKHWUXHVL]HDQGHLVWKHVL]LQJHUURU,IWKHHUURUGLVWULEXWLRQHKDVD]HURPHDQWKHPHDQYDOXH
of the distribution of measured values m for a specic feature of size d will be equal to d, i.e. E PLV
RIWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRIPHDVXUHGYDOXHVPIRUDVSHFLILFIHDWXUHRIVL]HGZLOOEHHTXDOWRGLH( m) is DQXQELDVHG
an unbiased
estimator for the exact feature size d. Quite often reporting thresholds are applied to either or both the lLl and field
HVWLPDWRUIRUWKHH[DFWIHDWXUHVL]HG4XLWHRIWHQUHSRUWLQJWKUHVKROGVDUHDSSOLHGWRHLWKHURUERWKWKH,/,DQGILHOG
measured depth values and these may introduce bias. Figure 0.5 shows an example thereof; if either the lLl or field
PHDVXUHGGHSWKYDOXHVDQGWKHVHPD\LQWURGXFHELDV)LJXUH&VKRZVDQH[DPSOHWKHUHRILIHLWKHUWKH,/,RUILHOG
recorded GHSWK
UHFRUGHG depth falls below ZW
IDOOV EHORZ 10 wt % LW
it LVQRW reported. These thresholding HIIHFWV
is not UHSRUWHG7KHVHWKUHVKROGLQJ effects DUH
are FOHDUO\
clearly YLVLEOH
visible DQG
and VKRXOG
should EHbe
accounted for when computing confidence bounds for
DFFRXQWHGIRUZKHQFRPSXWLQJFRQILGHQFHERXQGVIRU

If the sizing error e is assumed to be independent of d, a single random variable can be used to describe the sizing error
,IWKHVL]LQJHUURUHLVDVVXPHGWREHLQGHSHQGHQWRIGDVLQJOHUDQGRPYDULDEOHFDQEHXVHGWRGHVFULEHWKHVL]LQJHUURU
over the entire sizing range. It is important to recognize that, when the sizing error e is independent of d, the measured
RYHUWKHHQWLUHVL]LQJUDQJH,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRUHFRJQL]HWKDWZKHQWKHVL]LQJHUURUHLVLQGHSHQGHQWRIGWKHPHDVXUHG
value m and the sizing error e are not statistically independent of each other and this functional dependence should be
YDOXHPDQGWKHVL]LQJHUURUHDUHQRWVWDWLVWLFDOO\LQGHSHQGHQWRIHDFKRWKHUDQGWKLVIXQFWLRQDOGHSHQGHQFHVKRXOGEH
taken into consideration when estimating the best estimate and confidence bound for the true depth for a particular lLl
WDNHQLQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQZKHQHVWLPDWLQJWKHEHVWHVWLPDWHDQGFRQILGHQFHERXQGIRUWKHWUXHGHSWKIRUDSDUWLFXODU,/,
depth. The standard deviation of the measured values is also larger than the standard deviation of the actual true feature
GHSWK7KHVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRIWKHPHDVXUHGYDOXHVLVDOVRODUJHUWKDQWKHVWDQGDUGGHYLDWLRQRIWKHDFWXDOWUXHIHDWXUH
size GLVWULEXWLRQ
VL]H distribution. ,I
If G
d DQG
and H
e DUH
are DVVXPHG
assumed LQGHSHQGHQW
independent, WKHQ
then Var m) = 9DU
9DU P Vard) + Var
G  6). 7KLV
9DU H This HTXDWLRQ
equation LV
is GLVWULEXWLRQ
distribution
independent and reflects the additional uncertainty that is introduced due to sizing inaccuracies.
LQGHSHQGHQWDQGUHIOHFWVWKHDGGLWLRQDOXQFHUWDLQW\WKDWLVLQWURGXFHGGXHWRVL]LQJLQDFFXUDFLHV
66
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

40-
30-
%)
(wt

Depth

Ditch

Depth
|L|

O 10 20 30 4O 50 6O

|L| Depth (wt %)

Figure &(UURU3ORWDVD)XQFWLRQRI5HSRUWHG)HDWXUH'HSWK
)LJXUH C.4Error Plot as a Function of Reported Feature Depth

100 -

%)
(wt
|L|

Field (wt %)

Figure &8QLW\3ORWZLWKDZW5HSRUWLQJ7KUHVKROG$SSOLHGWR%RWK,/,
)LJXUH C.5Unity Plot with a 10 wt % Reporting Threshold Applied to Both ILI
and Field Recorded Depth Values
DQG)LHOG5HFRUGHG'HSWK9DOXHV
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION SYSTEMS
163(&7,216 QUALIFICATION
<67(064 8$/,),&$7,21 67


Sample Checklist Forms

lLl Verification Checklist

Operator Inspection Vendor

Pipeline Inspection Date

Segment

Start Chainage End Chainage

SCORE
ITEM PARAMETER (PASS/FAIL] COMMENTS
CONDITIONAL)

1 Tool Selection

Historical Performance of the

2
Inspection System

3 Planning

4 Prerun Function Check

5 Prerun Mechanical Check

6 Procedure Execution

7 Postrun Function Check

8 Postrun Mechanical Check

9 Field Data Check

Data Analysis Processes:

10
Quality Check

11 Cumulative Assessment

Engineer Date
68
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m_ 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m_ 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m

20D

mZO_. <O ._

QmFOmEuZ 50:3m._ 50:33 50:3m._ 50:3m._ 50:33 50:3m._ 50:33 50:33 50:33 50:33

0.05.
50050
50050 50050
Mm wmoEQ
:0530 xm v_0050
:030004
0 :0E:otmn_ _m0_:m50 _>_
:o_0\0:3u_ _mo_:m50 _>_ :o_50:3n_ 5850
:o_50 _0m Ema w_w>_m:<

awkm=>_<m<n_ 68. _00:20_I m:_: m_n_ c3505 :3505& 0530 0 5 :3bwon_ :3bm:on_ 20 Ema 3280

0308?. _>_m:._
F N m 3 m n w a or :00:_m:m_
 ,IN-LINE
1/,1(,INSPECTION SYSTEMS
163(&7,216 QUALIFICATION
<67(064 8$/,),&$7,21 

lLl Verification Checklist

Transcontinental Pipeline Acme

Operator inspection Vendor
Line 1 _ SOUth Inspection Date 17 Apr 2012
Pipeline

Segment Valve 34

Start Chainage 0 ft End Chainage 138261 ft

SCORE
ITEM PARAMETER (PASSIFAIL/ COMMENTS
CONDITIONAL)

1 Tool Selection /{OO| technology e cellent; however, unable to record

C
some sharp bends ee map)
Historical Performance of the .
2 P Excellent hIstory
Inspection System /
3 Planning P \

4 Prerun Fuak

5 Prer echanical Che Mechanica ecks were performed and documented

P
(see att ed)

6 ocedure Execution C wpeed at some locations .

nexpected seamless pIpe sectlon (see map)

7 Pos un Function Check Function checks performed and documented

(see attached)

8 Postrun Mechanical Check P Mechanical checks performed and documented

(see attached)

9 Field Data\{1eck P
\/
Data Analysis Processes:
10 P
Quality Check

11 Cumulative Assessment All issues have been acknowledged and have been
P deemed minor or will be addressed by other actions

Engineer Date
70
 API STANDARD
$3,6 1163
7$1'$5'

Jy
/.
ova0 v_O v_O v5 v5 x0 v_O v_O
not

0>_0 0m_ 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0m_ 0>_0 0m 0>_0 0N_ 0>_0 0m_ 32 0>_0 0m_ 0>_0 0N_ 0>_0 0m
3.:
50m:0m
.

:0500m 06:7.
(I
ONIm .
mm
00.: 0/
$0
_
z:
00m
0m
8
96 IV
(/x 2:

8
56
69

go
504o
lama

0000

9/
a:
>
[9
3%
Ac>
o
$90
one04o:
00w?
mZO_. <UO|_

o . 50:33 50:30
Duhomunz 50:30._ 50:30._ 50:30._ 50:30._ 50:30._ 50:30._ 50:30._ 50:30._

:05.
N

50050
50050 50050
0000005

0 :0:50501 :03 0 xm. v_005O

c2300.. :o_0 :3n_ _0 _:050 _>_ :o_0 :3n_ _0 _:050 _>_
$00
320
:o_0 0_0w m_m>_0:<

MuhmSdi _oo._. $0592: m:_: 0_n_ :350:n_ :350:n_ 0530 0 51 :3bmon_ :3bw:on_ U_0_n_ 0000 3:95

3000002 _>_m_._._ or :00:_m:m_