MAY

JUNE
2008
_____

Vol 14
Issue 3

Alberta Boiler p. 4
Safety Association
Issues Rev 5

European p. 5
Commission
Launches Study

Developing p. 6
Methodology of
Pulsed Thermal NDT

2008 p. 16
International
Pipeline Conference

You Don’t p. 17
Get Something
For Nothing

2009 API p. 21
Inspector Summit

1 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 IJ Industry.....Activities Planner
May / June The Inspectioneering® Journal does not warrant nor guarantee the accuracy of any infor-
2008 mation contained, nor the extent of inclusiveness, in the Industry Activities Planner. It
is imperative that interested parties contact the sponsoring organizations, for each par-
_____ ticular event, to verify dates, information and locations, prior to any planning or decision
making regarding the value of each event. Readers may contact the Inspectioneering®
Journal office to obtain appropriate contact information.
Vol 14 Issue 3
Please e-mail any activities of interest you think applicable to the Inspectioneering®
community to tij@gte.net.
The Inspectioneering® Journal
J U LY 20 0 8
is a bi-monthly,
copyright protected, 27-31
ASME 2008 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (PVP),
periodical published Chicago, IL> NDE, FFS, CAS. For more information visit the web
six times per year. site www.asmeconferences.org/PVP08/

Please address all S E P T E M B E R 20 0 8

correspondence to:
The Inspectioneering® Journal 1-2
5315 FM 1960 West, 15th Annual India Oil and Gas Review Symposium and
Suite B 237 International Exhibition, Hotel Taj Lands End, Bandra, Mumbai,
India > For more information e-mail at oilasia@vsnl.com or
Houston, TX Contact Bert D’Cunha Mobile : 9833992865 or visit the website
77069 USA www.oilasia.com

Phone: (281) 397-7075 14-18

Fax: (281) 397-9996 NACE Corrosion Technology Week 2008, Salt Lake City, UT > NDE,
Email: tij@gte.net VE, RL. For more information visit the web site www.NACE.org
Website:
www.inspectioneering.com O C TO B E R 2 0 0 8
Publisher: 29-2
International Pipeline Conference, Hyatt Regency Hotel and
Dawn Alvarado Telus Conference Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada> For more
information visit the web site http://www.internationalpipelin
Chief Editor: econference.com/
Gregory C. Alvarado
Contributing Authors: N OV E M B E R 20 0 8
M.Z. Umar
10-12
I. Ahmad API Fall Refining Meeting, Los Angeles CA > CAS, RI, FFS, RBI,
A. R. Hamzah NDE, VE. For more information visit the web site www.API.org
V. Vavilov
W. Swiderski 25-27
Gregory C. Alvarado Kuwait Pipeline Conference and Exhibition, Radisson SAS Hotel –
Kuwait > NDE, VE, FFS, CAS, RBM, RBI, RL. For more information
visit the web site www.kuwaitpipelines.com

(ISSN 1082-6955)
 ❑ YES
I would like to subscribe to the INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
Single subscriptions cost $250.00 U.S. per year (6 issues). 10% discount for
2 yr. subscriptions. Contact us for details on multiple subscription pricing.
Non-U.S. subscribers add .50¢ per year for postage.

Digital Subscriptions Available:

Send pricing, format and delivery questions to tij@gte.net

___________________________________________________________________________________________
_
Subscriber Name (Recipient)

___________________________________________________________________________________________
_
IND E X - Company Name

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Alberta Boiler Safety.................... 4-5 Address
Association Issues Rev 5
___________________________________________________________________________________________
_
City State/Province Zip/Code

European Commission ....................5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Launches Study Phone Fax

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Email URL
Developing Methodolgy of.......... 6-15
Pulsed Thermal NDT ❑ Renewal ❑ New Subscription
❑ Check Enclosed ❑ Bill Me (payment due in 30 days)

2008 International ....................... 16

______________________________
__
Pipeline Conference Cardholder Name

___________________________________________________________
You Don’t Get Something ............... 17 Credit Card No. Expiration Date
For Nothing
_________________________________________________________________________________
Cardholder Signature Date
2009 API Inspector Summit............ 21
Please make checks payable to The Inspectioneering Journal
5315 FM 1960 West, Suite B 237
Houston, TX 77069
Telephone: (281) 397-7075 Fax: (281) 397-9996
Email: tij@gte.net Website: www.inspectioneering.com

The Inspectioneering® Journal

assumes no responsibilities or
IJ Article Submission and Publication
liabilities for the accuracy or 1. All articles must adhere to the Guidelines and Requirements listed on our web site at
application of methodologies, http://www.inspectioneering.com/publishanarticle.htm.
technologies, philosophies, 2. Authors must have/obtain authorized permission to print, with company and name byline, in this publication.
references, case histories, or 3. Send duplicates of all photos, illustrations, and visual aids with permission to reprint. Must be submitted
un-authorized release of
company information in rela- with draft article.
tion to any printed subject mat- “IJ” retains right to reprint and archive all visual aids submitted for use.
ter in the Inspectioneering® 4. Unless otherwise requested, articles must be one page in length, 10 to 12 cpi, single spaced.
Journal The Inspectioneering® 5. Editor and contributing editors will make all final decisions regarding acceptance of article, i.e. value and
Journal, the editors and authors, appropriateness judgements, along with editing decisions.
or anyone acting on their behalf,
assume no responsibility or lia-
6. Author is responsible for final review, following step 5, and authorization from his/her employer to release,
bility, without limitation, for the as necessary.
use of information published in 7. All articles accepted by the “IJ” become the property of the “IJ”. No reprint is permitted without prior
the Inspectioneering® Journal. written authorization.
 Alberta Boiler Safety Association
Issues Rev 5 Inspection
& Servicing Requirements
for Pressure Equipment

The latest revision of this code (AB-506) is dated January small oil and gas processing facilities and commercial and
28, 2008. For many readers in the province of Alberta other applications.
Canada these rules will impact you directly. Others may
The information in AB-506 and other referenced ABSA policy
see effects or feel indirect effects as you jurisdictions may
documents was developed, and is updated periodically,
look to ABSA for direction or strongly consider their actions
based on ongoing consultation with Alberta pressure
for establishing other jurisdictions’ rules.
equipment owners and other stakeholders and information
The ABSA, as for many other jurisdictions, rules make from codes, standards and other published information.
frequent references and rely on API inspection codes such This process is designed to ensure that policy documents
as API 510 the pressure vessel inspection code, API 570 issued by ABSA, as the Alberta pressure equipment
the piping inspection code, API RP 580 the Risk-Based jurisdiction, reflect current best industry practices that are
Inspection recommended practice. suitable for all industry sectors.
It is important to note that often ABSA, as well as many other The sections of the National Board Inspection Code NB-
jurisdictions, “builds fences around” or imposes additional 23 and API-510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code that are
requirements around the use of the referenced codes and referenced, shall be used in conjunction with AB- 506 to
rules, as demonstrated below in excerpts from AB-506. determine the inspection requirements and inspections
Operators should be well aware of and in compliance with intervals for pressure equipment.
all requirements of their respective jurisdiction.
While the principles for establishing inspection intervals
Per the purpose section of the document: in API-510 and NB-23 Codes are similar, API Codes were
“This AB-506 Pressure Equipment Inspection and developed for pressure equipment used by the petroleum
Servicing Requirements document (ISRD), has been issued and chemical process industries and NBIC is intended for
by the Alberta pressure equipment safety Administrator, to pressure equipment that is not covered by API Codes.
specify inspection and servicing requirements for pressure It should be noted that these codes are not adopted as
equipment under the Safety Codes Act. It covers the regulations in Alberta and that they contain a caution
requirements for determining inspection practices and that if their use is in conflict with jurisdictional regulatory
establishes maximum inspection/servicing intervals for requirements, the jurisdictional requirements shall prevail.
pressure equipment and pressure relief devices. In Alberta, there are a number of exceptions and additional
The application of AB-506 under an Owners Certificate of requirements that must be met in order to comply with the
authorization permit issued under the Pressure Equipment Safety Codes Act and (PESR).
Safety regulation (PESR), and for risk based inspection The grading system that is described in this procedure
programs provided in accordance with AB-505 Risk-Based is based on the Institute of Petroleum Pressure Vessel
Inspection Requirements for Pressure Equipment is also Examination Code of Practice grading system. It was
addressed.” selected as an adjunct to the above Codes to provide
From the General section of this document: an objective method for setting inspection intervals that
“Pressure equipment for process applications installed is suited for all sectors of Alberta s pressure equipment
in Alberta covers a broad range of facilities from major industry.”
petrochemical plants, pulp mills, and power utilities to

4 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

The table of contents includes, but is not limited to: • Pressure Relief Devices
• Inspection Practices o Pressure Relief Valves
• Ownership and Location Changes o Rupture Discs
• Installation Inspection o Control of Pressure Relief Devices
• Thorough Inspection Grading Allocation o Other Protective Devices
o Inspection Grade (0) • MAXIMUM THOROUGH INSPECTION/
o Inspection Grade (1) SERVICING INTERVALS
o Inspection Grade (2) • REVISION LOG
o Inspection Grade (3) Applicable to Owner- In addition to various areas of pressure equipment safety
Users only and integrity management, overarching rules for the use of
o Allocation to lower Grade/lower interval risk-based inspection (RBI) are included. For specific rules
o Grading Review about RBI in this province refer to the document, Risk-Based
• Requirements for Certified Owner-Users Inspection Requirements for Pressure Equipment (AB505),
o New Vessels in Known Service Conditions Issued 2005-08-19 Revision 1. For more information visit
o Sample Inspection of Pressure Vessels the ABSA web site http://www.absa.ca/
o Risk Based Inspection Programs
o Inspection Date Deferral

European Commission Launches Study

on the Competitiveness of the European
Pressure Equipment Sector
In the autumn of 2007 the European Commission started the Many in the process industries have been invited to
“Study of the Market and Analysis of the Competitiveness participate in the online survey in 2 steps:
of the European Pressure Equipment Sector (MAPES)”
Step #1:     register and obtain credentials (username and
The Commission awarded the service contract for the password) at
above-mentioned study to the MAPES Project Consortium http://mapes.eu-vri.eu/registration.aspx
coordinated by the University of Stuttgart and involving
partners, BAM (Federal Institute for Materials Research Step #2:     respond to the survey by logging in at
and Testing, Berlin), FDBR (Fachverband Dampfkessel-, http://www.eu-vri.eu/fwlink/?LinkID=104 , and then
Behälter- und Rohrleitungsbau, Düsseldorf) and Technomar
GmbH (München), as well as VTT Finland, ANIMA Step #3:      clicking onto the links to respective
Italy, BV France, ME Group Poland and BZF Hungary. surveys (general surveys and the specific one for the
notified bodies).
The purpose of the study is two-fold:
• Establishment of an up-to-date description of Final answers were requested before May 31, 2008.
the European market for pressure equipment
including the international dimension; Confidentiality is guaranteed by the terms of the study
contract.
• Assessment of the international competitiveness
of the European pressure equipment sector. PS: The registration for the survey is needed in order to
ensure that:
In order to get the best possible result for this study, the
Commission calls upon the cooperation of the Stakeholders 1. The respondents may/can access and review their
of the pressure equipment sector to support the surveys own answers as many times as they wish or it is
and data collection to be conducted by the Consortium in needed until the very end of the survey action. In
2008. The study report is due in the first quarter of 2009. order to do so they just need to (a) save/submit
It will be presented to the stakeholders and discussed in the data entered and (b) re-access the data later
the Commission's expert groups related to the pressure using the credentials (user-id and password).
equipment sector. Intellectual property rights and copyright
of the final report will be owned solely by the European 2. The respondents may/can upload the relevant
Commission. (The person in charge: Mr. Hans D'hooge, documents which may be useful to for the
hans.dhooge@ec.europa.eu, tel. 32-2-296.36.25). completeness of their answers

5 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Developing Methodology
of Pulsed Thermal
NDT of Materials:
Step-by-step analysis of reference samples
M.Z. Umar*, I. Ahmad*, A. R. Hamzah**, V. Vavilov***, W. Swiderski****
* National University of Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
** Malaysian Nuclear Agency, 43000, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia.
*** Tomsk Polytechnic University, 7 Savinykh St., Tomsk, 634028 Russia.
&
****Military Institute of Armament Technology, 05-220 Zielonka, Prymasa Wyszynskiego 7 St., Poland.

Editor’s note: The following type of development work, often paves the way to development of better NDE flaw or
damage detection, sizing and characterization capabilities. Because it could supply accurate information about actual flaws
in a test sample, without destructive testing, it could help ensure the production of better samples for industry qualification
demonstration testing by knowing more accurately the defect contents and features. Another area is for development of
simulation systems and equipment for flaw detection, characterization and sizing programs, for qualification demonstration
testing without shipping around large, heavy samples to test NDE candidates. Obviously, better NDE technology and use
of technology should result, as well.
There is also some good information on the importance of signal to noise ratios for interpretation of NDE information.

Abstract 2. Inspection methodology

The concept of pulsed thermal nondestructive testing We believe that TNDT research funds can be significantly
including the simulation of finite-size defects in solid saved by first modeling potential test procedures which can
materials, optimization of test procedures and advanced be practically applied to a test object. A proper theoretical
data treatment has been proposed. The experimental results analysis should enable optimization of heating protocols
and development of defect characterization algorithms.
have been obtained on a bakelite reference sample which
Then, choosing an optimal data processing algorithm
contains bottom-hole defect surrogates of different depth
should provide a maximum signal-to-noise ratio and thus
and thickness. lead to realization of defect detection limits. Finally, ‘best’
images can be converted into binary maps of defects which
Key words: thermal nondestructive testing, modeling,
are preferred by end-users. All above-mentioned inspection
image processing, defect characterization
steps will be discussed below.
1. Introduction
Pulsed thermal nondestructive testing (TNDT) has been 3. Reference sample
considered as a reliable tool for inspecting both metals and Reference samples with bottom-hole defects are typical
in TNDT due to good repetition of defect parameters, even if
non-metals. Various aspects of this technique have been
such artificial defects badly simulate real test cases. To model
thoroughly studied by many authors, merely to mention
TNDT of materials, we have analyzed a reference sample
simulation of subsurface defects, optimization of heating made of bakelite (see the defect description in Fig. 1a).
protocols and advanced data analysis [1-3]. However, a few Following our previous experience, we suggest applying
papers describe step-by-step practical test procedures which the time-based Fourier transformation to any image
can be regarded as implementations of a close-up inspection sequence obtained as a result of a TNDT experiment. It
methodology. In this study, we present an attempt to is often believed that the so-called ‘phasegrams’ of which
summarize such methodology in application to composite example is shown in Fig. 1b may reveal hidden defects best
materials. of all due to reduced influence of surface noise.

6 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

4. Comparing experimental and theoretical informative parameters
∆Tm = {Td − Tnd }m
Two pairs of informative parameters are typical in TNDT: the maximum absolute differential temperature signal
τ m (∆T ) , and the maximum running contrast Cm = {∆Tm / Tnd }m and the corresponding time τ m (C )
and the time of its appearance
∆Tres of a used IR
. The first parameter is attractive from the physical point of view; being compared to the temperature resolution
system, it allows evaluating TNDT detection limits. However, ∆T is linearly proportional to the absorbed energy (power) W ( P ) and
thus is related to a heat source rather than to a tested sample. The C parameter is independent on W ( P ) and can be compared to the
C
noise running contrast n which characterizes a particular material. For example, it was found that naturally-black or black-painted
Cn ~1-4%. In both cases, the ratio ∆Tm / ∆Tres and/or Cm / Cn represent the signal-to-noise ratio.
materials are characterized by

Fig. 1. Bakelite sample scheme (a) and phasegram (b)

Fig. 2. Matching experimental (a) and theoretical (b) temperature evolutions

in non-defect area (retrieved value Q ~ 20 kW/m2)

Tm at the end of heating. In this case, the normalized contrast

Experimental data is often normalized, e.g. by a maximum temperature
Cmnorm = {∆T / Tm }m appears but it is identical to ∆Tm .

∆T , τ (∆T ), C
m m m and τ (C )
m
The values of and which appeared in our experiment have been found by considering two
points for each defect: a central (defect) point and a point placed close to a defect but still regarded as non-defect. The temporal
evolutions of ∆T and C are shown in Fig. 3 along with the corresponding maximum values. In accordance to the TNDT theory, it
is seen that maximums of C occur later than the maximums of ∆T . Oppositely, if both maximums would occur within heating, their
order will be reversed.

7 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Pulsed Thermal NDT

Fig. 3. Experimental evolutions of ∆T and C in the inspection

of the bakelite reference sample

Three-dimensional theoretical temperature distributions were calculated with the ThermoCalc-6L program from Innovation, Ltd.,
Russia. Round-shape defects were substituted with parallelepipeds having the same lateral area (Fig. 3a) and ∆T and C values were
determined for each defect by analyzing the corresponding temporal evolutions (Fig. 3b). The comparison between the theoretical and
∆Tm , τ m (∆T ), Cm and τ m (C ) is presented in Table 1.
experimental values of

The average divergence between the theory and the experiment (neglecting extreme values) is 32% by ∆T and 19% by τ m (∆T )
Cm and 21% by τ m (C ) that is explained by: 1) uneven heating, i.e. varying value of Q, and 2) noisy character
, respectively 41% by
of ∆T and C evolutions.

8 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

9 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008
 Pulsed Thermal NDT

5. Signal-to-noise ratio concept

In practice, optimal detection parameters are determined by analyzing temporal evolution of a signal-to-noise ratio SNR which
adheres to a particular defect and can be calculated if two areas are chosen: defect and non-defect:

Td − Tnd
SNR = , (1)
σ nd
T ,T σ
where d nd are the mean temperatures in chosen areas, and nd is the standard deviation of temperature in a non-defect area. The
example of the SNR (τ ) evolutions for Defect #5 and #8 is shown in Fig. 4. It is clear that optimal observation times correspond to
times when SNR values are maximal. These values are subjective because they depend on how the areas are defined. Typically, a defect
area should cover a ‘visible’ part of the corresponding defect and a non-defect area may cover a whole sample or an area comparable to
the defect area by size and shape. It is important that the SNR concept reflects distribution of pixel amplitudes but does not explain the
heuristic nature of how a trained operator identifies defects on a noisy background. In fact, in some cases, a defect which is characterized
by a lower SNR value can be easier detected by an experienced operator due to other informative features, such as shape, pixel coupling,
signal temporal behavior etc.

6. Comparing test procedures and processing algorithms

SNR is a good tool for optimizing test procedures and data processing algorithms. Some examples are shown in Table 2. First of
all, it is well seen that a higher heating power ensures higher SNR values probably because, in the particular experiments, the additive
noise dominated over multiplicative (surprisingly, the phasegrams proved to be inefficient under low-power heating). Shuttering thermal
radiation after heating has been useful due to cutting reflected radiation. Finally, it has been found that different defects may require
different processing algorithms, e.g. Defect #8 is better seen in the image of Fourier magnitude (as well as in the ‘best’ source image)
rather than in the phasegram, while the phase treatment has proven to be optimal in identifying Defect #5.

10 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Table 2
Comparing test procedures and processing algorithms
in the inspection of the bakelite reference sample
Image SNR
Defect #5 Defect #8
Q ~ 20 kW/m2 (halogen lamps)
Shutter, sample rotated after heating
16.7 12.6
Image of phase
15.6 122.4
Image of magnitude
4.8 120.3
Best source image

Q ~ 20 kW/m2(halogen lamps)
Shutter, sample monitored under angle 30o
16.7 20.3
Image of phase
1.7 53.9
Image of magnitude
12.8 57.8
Best source image
Q ~ 20 kW/m2 (halogen lamps)
No shutter, sample monitored under angle 30o
7.3 13.4
Image of phase
6.4 108.2
Image of magnitude
10.5 66.1
Best source image
Q ~1.6 kW/m2 (halogen lamps)
Shutter, sample monitored perpendicularly
0.1 0.7
Image of phase
1.9 13.3
Image of magnitude
0.6 11.2
Best source image
Q ~ 0.6 kW/m2 (air fan)
Shutter, sample rotated after heating
0.3 0.6
Image of phase
0.4 6.1
Image of magnitude
0.02 4.4
Best source image

In this study, the data treatment was fulfilled by using the ThermoFit Pro program from Innovation, Ltd. The results are presented in
Fig. 5 and Table 3. A correlogram is the image where each pixel value represents a correlation coefficient between a current pixel and a
pixel accepted as a reference [4]. Polynomial fitting allows approximation of T (τ ) evolutions with some polynomial functions [5]. As
a result, even a very long sequence can be substituted with few images of polynomial coefficients. The advantages of this technique are
the following: 1) images of coefficients may reveal defects better than the source images, 2) useful information can be concentrated only
in few images, 3) a source sequence can be restored to smooth the T (τ ) evolution; such evolutions can be further processed with some
techniques which can be hardly applied to noisy functions, e.g. derivation. Principle component analysis (PCA) is a useful statistical
procedure which is becoming increasingly popular in NDT [6]. It results in few images of significant signal components which reflect
peculiarities of T (τ ) evolutions. Phasegrams are results of the 1D Fourier processing in time obtained for a chosen temporal frequency
[7]. The most informative are phasegrams obtained at low frequencies because low-frequency thermal waves penetrate deeper into
materials. Since the Fourier treatment takes into account overall features of T (τ ) evolutions, pulse phase thermography (PPT) is often
regarded as a processing technique No. 1. This technique requires no specific knowledge on analyzed functions and can be applied to
arbitrary signal evolutions. Finally, dynamic thermal tomography (DTT) is a special data treatment technique which is based on the
τ m is
fact that, in one-sided TNDT, deeper defects produce lower signals at longer times, therefore, selecting particular intervals of
equivalent to ‘slicing’ a material by separate layers [8].

11 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Pulsed Thermal NDT
It is seen that, in the case of Defect #4, the highest SNR=6.1 occurs in the correlogram which is a result of applying the correlation
algorithm to a set of images.

12 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

7. Maps of defects

A map of defects is a binary image which appears as a result of ‘thresholding’ any source image. This concept can be easily
illustrated by considering an image histogram. First, the user has to define defect and non-defect areas (see squares in the image of Fig.
6) which produce two corresponding populations characterized by a particular SNR value according to Eq. (1). Choosing such areas is a
subjective process but effective while comparing different images at a fixed configuration of defect and non-defect areas. In a histogram,
these populations can be well-separated or cross each other. In the first case, ‘thresholding’ is trivial but, in the second case, the location
Pf .a. Pc.d . (see the histogram in Fig. 6). In
of a threshold defines the probability of false alarm and the probability of correct detection
P P
such way, a particular configuration of defect and non-defects areas results in a single SNR value but plentiful pairs of f .a. and c.d . .
Some binary images are presented in Fig. 7. The first two images are obtained by ‘thresholding’ the best source image (all 8 defects
are covered by defect areas and the rest of the sample is regarded as non-defect to produce SNR=2.5). Another pair of binary images
was obtained by a phasegram (SNR=13.6). Let us consider Defect #4. It is not seen in the source binary image (Fig. 7a) because of
Pf .a. Pf .a.
the low =5% value accepted. However, this defect turns to be visible if to accept =30% (Fig. 7b). In the phasegram binary
Pf .a.
image, Defect #4 is clearly seen at both =5% and 30% values. It is worth noting that enhancing correct detection can be achieved
Pf .a.
by relaxing requirements to

Fig. 6. Identifying defect and non-defect areas in the bakelite reference sample
Pf .a. Pc.d . =78%)
(ThermoFit Pro, Statistics option, best source image, SNR=2.5, =30%,

13 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Pulsed Thermal NDT

Pf .a. Pc.d . =67%,

a – by source image, SNR=2.5, =5%,
Pf .a. Pc.d . =78%,
b – by source image, SNR=2.5, =30%,
Pf .a. Pc.d . =95%,
c – by phasegram, SNR=13.6, =5%,
Pf .a. Pc.d . =98%
d - by phasegram, SNR=13.6, =30%,

8. 1D and 3D defect characterization

Several defect identification procedures have been proposed in pulsed TNDT [9-12]. Two defect characterization algorithms
conventionally called 1D and 3D are implemented in the ThermoFit Pro. The 1D algorithm assumes defects to be laterally infinite, thus
only two defect parameters (defect depth l and defect thickness d) can be evaluated. The input parameters are material thermal properties
and a heating time. The program calculates a maximum running contrast and a time of its appearance over a defect chosen by a user and
then produces images of defect depth and thickness.
The results of applying this algorithm to all 8 defects in the reference sample are presented in Table 4. The accuracy in evaluating
defect depth is from 20 to 30% on average. Note that defect thickness estimates are fairly inaccurate due to the fact that the above-
described algorithm is valid for thin hidden defects, such as delaminations, rather than for bottom-holes.
Table 5 contains characterization results obtained with the 3D algorithm. The principal feature of this algorithm is that the user has to
evaluate maximum and minimum lateral size D of an identified defect by using a kind of a threshold algorithm (the example is shown
in Fig. 6). Except small-size defects, the accuracy of determining D has been from 5 to 30% in our case, while errors in the determining
defect depth l have been typically less than 10%, i.e. better than in the case of the 1D algorithm (defect thickness estimates are also
invalid in this case).

14 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

9. Conclusion

In this study, we have summarized the concept of TNDT including the simulation of finite-size defects in solid materials, optimization of
test procedures and advanced data treatment based on maximizing a signal-to-noise ratio and applying 1D and 3D defect characterization
algorithms. The experimental results have been obtained on a bakelite reference sample which contains bottom-hole defect surrogates of
different depth and thickness. The proposed approach is quite general thus allowing optimizing pulsed TNDT findings.

References
1. Vavilov V.P., D.D. Burleigh and Demin V.G. Advanced modeling of thermal 7. Maldague X., Marinetti S. Pulse phase infrared thermography.-J. Appl. Phys.,
NDT problems: from buried landmines to defects in composites.-Proc. SPIE 1996, Vol. 79, p. 2694-2698.
“Thermosense XXIV”, Vol. 4710, pp. 507-521. 8. Vavilov V., Maldague X. Dynamic thermal tomography: new promise in the
2. Vavilov V.P. and Maldague X. Optimization of heating protocol in thermal IR thermography of solids.-Proc. SPIE, “Thermosense-XIV”, 1992, Vol. 1682, p.
NDT: back to the basics.-Intern. E. & Instr., pp.132-138. 194-206.
3. Vavilov V.P. Evaluating the efficiency of data processing algorithms in 9. Vavilov V., Grinzato E., Bison P.G., Marinetti S. Thermal characterization
transient thermal NDT.- Proc. SPIE “Thermosense XXVI”, Vol. 5405, 2004, pp. and tomography of carbon fibre reinforced plastics using individual identification
336-347. technique.-Mater. Evaluation, May 1996, Vol. 54, No.6, p. 604-611.
4. ThermoFit Pro operation manual, Innovation Ltd., Russia, 2007, 72 p. 10. Krapez J.-C., Maldague X., Cielo P. Thermographic NDE: Data inversion
5. Grinzato E., Bison P.G., Marinetti S. and Vavilov V. Thermal NDE enhanced procedure (Part II: 2D analysis and experimental results).-Res. in NDE, 1991. No.
by 3D numerical modeling applied to works of art.-In: Proc. 15th World Conf. on 2, p. 101-124.
NDT, Rome (Italy), 15-21 Oct. 2000 (available only on CD), 9 p. 11. Winfree W.P., Zalameda J.N. Thermographic determination of delaminations
6. Hermosilla-Lara S., Joubert P.-I., Placko D. et al. Enhancement of open-cracks depth in composites. // Proc. SPIE “Thermosense-XXV”, 2003, Vol. 5073, p. 363-
detection using a principal component analysis/wavelet technique in photothermal 373.
nondestructive testing.-Abstr. Intern. Conf. Quant. Infrared Thermography 12. Almond D.P., Saintey S., Lau S.K. Edge effects and defect sizing by transient
QIRT’02, Dubrovnik, Croatia, Sept. 24-27, 2002, p. 12-13. thermography.-”Proc. Quant. Infr. Thermography QIRT’94”, Eurotherm Seminar
#42, Sorrento, Italy, August 23-26, 1994, p. 247-252.

15 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 International Pipeline Conference 2008
In September 2008, members of the pipeline industry 7. Materials & Joining
from around the world will gather in Calgary for the 7th Materials Design, Manufacture of Steel and Pipe, Alternative
International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2008). Organized by Materials, High Strength Pipe, Welding, Hot Tapping,
volunteers representing international E&P, transmission, and Mechanical Joining, Non-Destructive Examination, Quality
distribution corporations, energy and pipeline associations Control and Assurance, High Pressure Operations, Fracture
and governments, the IPC has become internationally Control, Properties of and Evaluation of Welds
renowned as the world’s premier pipeline conference. This
is a not-for-profit conference and proceeds continue to 8. Operations & Maintenance
support educational initiatives in the pipeline industry. Applications of Technology, Operating Experience,
The conference will begin on Monday, September 29, with Preventative-Maintenance Techniques, Life-Cycle
tutorials in key areas of interest. Track sessions will begin Engineering, Operating Equipment Optimization, Useful Life
the morning of Tuesday, September 30, and run through to Extensions, Operating Cost Reductions, Vendor Alliances
Friday, October 3. Conference organizers are developing 13
technical tracks to enhance the opportunities for attendees 9. Pipeline Automation & Measurement
to hear and participate in discussion with industry leaders SCADA, Communications, Automation, Control Devices,
in the topic areas of their choice. Instrumentation, Sensor Technology, Measurement
and Metering, Hydraulic Simulations, Leak Detection,
Technical Program Operations, Simulation and Trainers

1. Project Management 10. Pipelining in Northern and Offshore Environments

Pipeline Projects and aspects of Cost, Schedule and Quality Emerging Technologies, Working in Permafrost,
associated with them. Construction Techniques, Logistics, Engineering in Cold
Regions, Environmental Factors, Rapid Lake Drainage,
2. Design & Construction Offshore Pipelines, Flexible Pipelines, Intra-Field Pipelines,
System Planning (Hydraulics), Design, Survey, Logistics, Risers, Effects of Climate Change on Northern Pipelines
Construction, Geotechnical, Quality Control and Quality
Assurance, Testing, Commissioning, Pipelines, Coatings, 11. Strain-Based Design – New Track
Compressor and Pump Stations, Terminals, Pigging Strain-Based Design, Limit States Design, Reliability-
Facilities, Valves, Piping Stress Analysis, Change of Service, Based Design, Strain Demands, Geo-Hazard Assessment
Abandonment and Characterization, Stability of Frozen Slopes, Frost
Heave, Thaw Settlement, Thermal Modeling, Ice Scour,
3. Environmental Issues High Deformation Pipe, Tensile Strain Limits, Compressive
Socio-Economics, Community Involvement, Permitting Strain Limits
Strategies, Reclamation, Mitigation, Abandonment, Land
Issues, Emissions/Hydrotesting Fluids, Remediation, 12. Risk & Reliability
EIA, Cumulative Effects Assessment, Route Selection, Risk Assessment, Risk-Based Maintenance Planning,
Monitoring, Water Crossings Failure Data Analysis and Failure Rate Estimation, Failure
Consequence Modeling, Risk Tolerance Criteria, Pipeline
4. GIS/Database Development Security
Records Management, Case Studies, Database Design,
Implementation, Satellite Imaging and Remote Sensing, 13. Standards & Regulations
Geomatics, Coordinate Systems, GPS Applications, Field Compliance, Code of Practice, Safety, Environment,
and Inspection Data Management Management Systems, Comparison of Standards,
Abandonment Issues, Quality Assurance, Survey, Material
5. Facilities Integrity – New Track Identification Systems, Regulatory Styles, Goal Based vs.
Tanks, Pumps, Compressor Stations, Yard Piping, Station Prescriptive Regulations
Piping—This new session is all about managing the integrity
of assets inside a fence and not on a pipeline right of way. Posters / Student Papers / Panels
Historically these assets have not been subject to the same
type of scrutiny as pipeline assets but requirements are Poster Sessions
changing. Poster sessions will be held throughout the conference
based on interest and space availability. Interested authors
6. Pipeline Integrity Management should submit abstracts on the International Pipeline
Cathodic Protection, Stress Corrosion Cracking, Conference website (available soon) or by emailing the
Mitigation, Defect Detection and Assessment, Repair, Technical Coordinator at:
Risk Assessment, Materials Science, External and Internal info@InternationalPipelineConference.com.
Coatings, Internal Corrosion Control, Inhibitors, Managing Please specify that your submission is for Poster
Integrity, Engineering Critical Assessment, Mitigation, Sessions.
Direct Assessment, Inspection Tools (Internal and External)
for Transmission and Production Pipelines, Assessment For more information visit the web site
Technologies, Telluric Currents http://www.internationalpipelineconference.com/

16 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 You Don’t Get Something for Nothing
Risk-Based Inspection

Editorial by Greg Alvarado, Chief Editor

The significant problems we face cannot be solved from the same level of thinking at which they were created.
Albert Einstein

Do we know how to free ourselves do anything to raise us to a new level of thinking to help us
from the current level of thinking to overcome our problems? Would we really even know it? Do
rise to a higher level? It will take we have the courage to tell management or others what we
this for us to overcome many of really think? Do we know how to do it constructively without
our current challenges in the arena losing the substance of the message? Do we have the courage
of equipment reliability. We are to say, “I made a mistake”?
responsible for this critical role as
As George Santayana wrote in his work, The Life of Reason,
the mission for many of us, when
Vol. 1 Reason in Common Sense, “Those who cannot
it comes to equipment integrity and
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” So what are
reliability, goes something like this:
you doing differently? How are you improving, individually,
personally, professionally? How are you migrating that to your
Achieve regulatory and corporate
fixed equipment reliability management program? I am a firm
compliance, and ensure reliable
Gregory C. Alvarado believer that personal growth is necessary before we can
use of equipment (including
Chief Editor contribute significantly to other areas of our lives. One of the
piping) for finite run times,
first places to start is with honesty, i.e. honesty with ourselves
Inspectioneering Journal while measuring, managing and and with others. Check our motives. Are they noble? Are we
minimizing risks and eliminating
making this decision or peddling our influence for selfish or
non-value adding activities and costs.
noble reasons?
Risk would include health and safety and environmental
It isn’t easy, but few worthy endeavors are. Let’s start with,
elements, as well as business.
perhaps one of the biggest challenges……
Items that may impede rising to a new level might be fear,
greed, culture, politics, busyness, “turf wars”, pride, focus on
Culture – Inspectors and Fixed Equipment
short term profits, lack of appreciation for long term thinking
Reliability Engineers
and actions, prejudice, not researching the facts, ignorance In the world of RBI and fixed equipment reliability, there are
(this can breed a state of unconscious incompetence), having various team members but there are basically two roles that
the wrong people in the position, etc. Just throwing money at who are most engaged on a day to day basis, that of the;
the challenges or still “doing it on the cheap” are not thinking
at a higher level either. Industry has been doing this for quite • Fixed equipment reliability engineer, who may be
some time, most unsuccessfully as evidenced by continued a degreed engineer or a senior inspector, who via
industry losses due to equipment failure1. experience, certifications and education, is an engineer
in his/her own right.
Just because we place a new wrapper on a piece of software, • Then we have the inspector, who provides information
add few buzzers and whistles or claim, “this software has an to the fixed equipment reliability engineer and either
SAP link”, or to say it does everything (but having a shallow performs or is responsible for the oversight and quality
technical basis), we must ask ourselves, did that really of inspections. This information is used to “fine tune”

17 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Turnaround Benefits of RBI
You Don’t Get There are important responsibilities associated with turnaround
planning which include providing enough up-front information
Something for Nothing about the equipment to ensure the shortest turnaround
possible. That means “no surprises” during the turnaround. It
might also mean that anything needing to be addressed during
or decrease the scatter in his/her reliability prediction/
the turnaround is discovered or predicted well in advance of the
projection of the equipment, regardless of whether or
turnaround so that all preparations are in place and planned
not it is part of an RBI program. It is a very important
and executed during the turnaround to achieve maximum
job.
effectiveness and efficiency. These might include but are not
It is typically the fixed equipment reliability engineer who is limited to:
charged to ensure the equipment is available to perform as
• On-stream inspection
intended for the desired run time, usually till the next turnaround
• Fitness for service (FFS) for findings prior to the
or maintenance outage, at a minimum. Inspection information
shutdown for run/repair/replace decisions
should be ordered and gathered as part of a well-thought out
• FFS resources available during the outage to ensure
strategy, with a good understanding of all the risk drivers. If
the quickest response to any “surprises”
most of the equipment was operated as designed, we wouldn’t
• Consideration of past inspection findings
be experiencing as many of the failures1 as we are.
• Knowledge about industry best practices
Keep this in mind, the reason we do inspection, in most of the • Enough knowledge about corrosion and materials
cases, is to “fine tune” our reliability prediction so we can ensure engineering to ensure proper review of equipment and
a desired level of equipment performance and keep the product processes
flowing into the market, safely. It is not to feed a software • Anticipation and preparation for heat treatment
database. So you tell me, how important are the probability of • Alloy changes
failure and consequence models? How important is it that we • Addition of process or corrosion monitoring
select the right NDE methods, of appropriate sensitivities, to instrumentation
find, characterize and size the damage effectively? • Capital project work associated with turnaround
maintenance work
There are certain key and critical contributions, not to be • Inspection surface preparation
downplayed or skipped, of the corrosion/materials engineer • Etc.
and the senior unit operator and process engineer. Together
they help to identify the potential damage mechanisms that are Of course, we should always consider if the equipment or
process related. The corrosion/materials engineer also helps unit really needs to be shutdown to perform the required
by identifying external damage mechanisms. Do not skimp inspection. Maybe a single piece of equipment or sub-system
on the corrosion materials engineer. This corrosion/materials/ can be isolated and shutdown for inspection without disabling
metallurgical engineer must be industry experienced and the entire unit. We can accomplish a lot, today, with on-stream
familiar with this type of unit to do the job of potential damage NDE. There will still be those instances where we simply must
mechanisms identification as required by API Recommended cool or completely shutdown a piece of equipment to perform
Practice 580 for risk-based inspection. the inspection.
One important exception is for RBI of a new unit where there Typical RBI Workflow and Ownership
is virtually no industry experience to draw on. In these cases
It is also the fixed equipment reliability engineer or Inspectioneer
an industry experienced corrosion/materials/metallurgical
who “captains” the RBI Software as the primary analyst to
engineer should perform the damage mechanisms review and
develop the inspection strategies to be implemented by the
process information validation with participation or input from
inspector. The analyst must have a well rounded awareness
the design agency corrosion/materials/metallurgical engineer
of the various aspects to be considered to ensure equipment
and process engineering people. It is important that this
reliability. He/she “hands” the inspectors their “marching”
team, in addition to being well-experienced in the industry, be
orders.
current in the theories of chemistry, metallurgy, materials and
thermodynamics, to ensure the best job possible is done in I have found that most inspectors aren’t really that interested
identifying potential damage mechanisms. Where uncertainties in running the RBI program and establishing the equipment
exist, consider on-stream inspection or process monitoring to strategies anymore. They would rather inspect and oversee
validate estimates. inspections. They often say, “Just tell me what to do, when and
where to do it.”
By the way, while new damage mechanisms identification
softwares available in the market can be very useful, they do It is the job of the inspectors to ensure the “orders” are carried
not replace the experienced corrosion/materials/metallurgical out effectively, to the level of precision and quality necessary,
engineer in the RBI process. There are simply too many nuances and that results are reported accurately to update the predictive
that can occur in many process units to solely depend on these models.
tools. That could be dangerous. This corrosion/materials/
In order to achieve maximum effectiveness the owner operator
metallurgical engineer might be able to tell a non- corrosion/
must own the program.
materials/metallurgical engineer if a certain tool is sufficient for
a particular unit, if he/she is sufficiently familiar with it or an The Low Hanging Fruit Analogy
inspector may use it as a helpful reference in his/her day to day
routine. Certainly for the first damage mechanisms review you RCM “gurus” have been talking about grabbing the “low hanging
should engage an industry experienced corrosion/materials/ fruit” (LHF) for at least the last 15 years. I wonder how much
metallurgical engineer. of this “fruit” is left. In addition, technical predictive models

18 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

used to grab LHF are coarse calculators with broad and most detailed approach (Boy if someone was selling a “real” stock or
often unknown accuracy scatter bands for both probability of investment at those types of percentages, wouldn’t you jump
and consequence of failure. They are definitely not the type on it in a heartbeat? Unfortunately, it isn’t happening.) I hate
of models one would trust, for example, to say it is acceptable to tell you this, but the solution is usually “in the details”. That
to allow this piece of equipment stay in service for the next 10 is typically where the vulnerabilities exist. Some of the more
years, granted it is operated within certain limits, when it has detailed activities being implemented to make a difference
areas where metal loss is beyond the corrosion allowance, say today include, but are not limited to (They go well with an RBI
by 15 to 20%, for example. Yet, aren’t these the very challenges program and provide great synergy. They also have “common
we must now manage with our aging infrastructure? threads” running through them and are interdependent. They
often need to be considered holistically.):
Much of the low “hanging fruit” is gone! Fret not. Have you ever
seen a fruit tree? Most of the “bountiful harvest” is amongst • Implementing a materials operating envelopes
the leaves and branches, anyway. Now we need better models (MOE) program in a processing facility. This involves
to help management make the decisions they need to make, identifying the key operating parameters that can
without blowing up equipment or allowing failure that shut units lead to premature failure of equipment. Defining the
down and more importantly hurt people and the environment. acceptable operating ranges for each parameter.
We need to have a firm grasp on the scatter present in our Set up laboratory testing and on-stream surveillance
predictions and manage that commensurately, considering in equipment to monitor these parameters, and
the risks. There aren’t many new plants being built and the managing the dissemination of the on-stream
infrastructure is critical2. This is our challenge. information with something such as a DCS system.
Then set up a notification system to alert the “right”
persons that certain parameters have been breeched.
Automation of this may be acceptable to a point, or
having operations making certain assessments of the
data can be acceptable, but be extremely certain that
whoever is evaluating the information is qualified, i.e.
they have a firm understanding of the sensitivities
and understand the ramifications. Otherwise, it might
be useless or worse, dangerous. It will often require
the scrutiny of an experienced corrosion or materials
engineer or metallurgist. Although chemical engineers
can make good corrosion engineers, this takes
intentional education, experience and mentoring.
A typical process engineer who has not had the
intentional training and experience mentioned in the
last sentence is not a corrosion engineer, even though
they may feel like it.
• Implementation of an injection and mix point program.
These areas are responsible for a lot of failures. A
The Bounty is amongst the leaves and branches structured program identifying their locations, the
(infrastructure) process variables associated with them, metallurgical
information and inspection strategy should be a part of
The Roles of Predictive and Pro-active Programs this program.
• Special emphasis inspection programs such as
If the premise about our primary responsibility put forth above
injection and mix points, small bore connections, high
is accurate about ensuring a given level of safety and reliability
temperature hot hydrogen attack, etc.
or availability then what is more important, excellent predictive
• Special emphasis modeling programs such as creep
models or whether or not the software tool we are using links to
and vibration analysis, just to name a couple.
the enterprise system we are using? When the latter becomes
• A truly effective management of change program
more important, which I believe has in many instances, I
touches on all of the bullets in this section, and more.
challenge us to consider if the “oil and water”, figuratively
• Implementing RBI at the design stage of units, either
speaking, have reversed positions. I understand you are
new, revamped or a combination. This can help identify
trying to coordinate and streamline your working, reporting,
and eliminate infant mortalities, opportunity and
data management, reporting, work order and documentation
justification for alloy upgrades, provide justification for
practices but if you have abandoned sound technology
pushing initial inspections of new equipment to longer
necessary for making vital decisions the “tail” is “wagging the
intervals (for equipment where uncertainty is higher
dog”. You may have abandoned sound engineering practices
than comfortable, allow for on-stream inspections)
for nice software packages!
• Using RBI to evaluate the reliability ramifications of
What psychologically, organizationally, can lead to the type of process and metallurgical changes, this includes
culture described in the previous paragraph? Unfortunately, crude slate changes and other process changes. This
most of us are overworked, wearing multiple hats, trying to can identify areas of risk vulnerability and let you know
prioritize all of our responsibilities in an environment that is not up-front the upsides and downsides, technically and
well thought-out and pressed with making a profit. That makes from a business perspective of those changes and
us vulnerable to hearing what we want to hear. For example, help you plan an optimal strategy to handle the risks
have you ever heard about the “programs” that provide 80% or decide not to make the changes.
of the return for 20% of the investment or effort of a full blown, • Using a fitness for service (FFS) perspective to help

19 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 RBI Considerations
You Don’t Get Have you ever noticed or compared many qualitative RBI
tools to quantitative tools? Here some of my observations from
Something for Nothing comparisons; by the way, I have not compared all the RBI
software tools available in the universe:

us understand how equipment fails and appreciate 1. Cost of the software and implementation costs are
how sensitive NDE methods need to be, or don’t need about the same, in general.
to be, to find the damage or degradation that would 2. Resource requirements to implement are about the same.
“go critical” before the next inspection. 3. The ability to understand and use the software requires
• Using FFS to make run, repair, and replace decisions. thought for the quantitative tools.
It surprises me how many people are making 4. Results using qualitative tools are roughly equal to
unnecessary replacements and repairs and leaving a traditional API 510 and 570 approaches, i.e. very few
lot of money on the table in the process by not using results, albeit a few, will provide significantly longer
recommended practices like API RP 579. inspection intervals than the traditional approaches.
• Corrosion systemization and circuitization of piping This may leave some with a sour taste in their mouths
systems. The circuits that result from this exercise eventually because non-value adding activities are not
should be used for your RBI and inspection database being identified and ultimately RBI did not free them
management systems. This will allow you to track CML up to do more valuable things. In these cases it is just
thickness readings as associated with true corrosion another thing that they already did not have time to do.
circuits. What a novel idea? As a corporate or team I have a couple of theories of why this happens:
learning exercise, this leads to better understanding, a. Sellers do not want to expose themselves to
especially when coupled with RBI, a FFS perspective, risk they cannot back up technically.
damage mechanisms reviews and MOE’s, of the b. It costs too much money and resources are
dynamics and vulnerabilities associated with piping scant to build better predictive models.
failure, in advance to produce a more proficient 5. Qualitative tools output static risk matrices
and productive piping management program. If you 6. Some quantitative tools output static risk matrices,
question the worth of such an approach check out a and dynamic metrics, some with dynamic modeling,
few case histories in the first reference at the end of showing risk gradients over time and accompanying
this article. probability of failure trending over time
• And more… 7. Qualitative tools by their very rarely, if ever, possess
the ability to know the amount of scatter in their
Note that I have not gone into already established practices predictions, hence their not being much different in
like positive materials identification programs, welding benefit from using traditional 510/570 approaches
inspection programs, QA/QC programs, inspection database other than providing an opportunity to perform on-
management programs and others. They are important. I often stream versus internal inspections to “skirt” regulatory
look at all these programs as interdependent “layers” of a good requirements in a non-RBI environment.
fixed equipment reliability program. None of them by itself 8. Quantitative tools with their working process, should
provides 100% assurance that we will avoid failures. Together, provide the information to understand and measure
they make a formidable team to prevent that “bad actor’ from the amount of scatter in most any prediction,
passing through all the layers. understanding the assumptions, if any were made in
the process.
It is critical when making assumptions in the RBI process,
for either qualitative or quantitative technologies, that highly
experienced people, both with the technology, understanding
the sensitivities of the input data and impact on the model
Sunoco, Inc., an independent refiner and marketer and experienced with the specific type of unit, are consulted
of petroleum in Toledo, has an immediate need to ensure that assumptions are reasonably conservative. The
owner operator must be involved in this process, review and
for an Inspection Manager. approve the assumptions.
The selected applicant will manage a staff of
inspector’s to ensure the mechanical integrity of the Implementing and maintaining an effective RBI program will
refinery and provide technical leadership in solving require thought, holistic thinking and reasoning, honesty,
synergizing with complimentary initiatives, resources (internal
complex problems involving refinery equipment. and possibly external) and investment in software.

Candidates must hold a BS in Engineering and ten Ultimately the lagging parameters of % availability, % reliability,
years of refinery experience or 20 years inspection loss or improvement of profit or production opportunities due
to equipment reliability will be the judge of our success at
experience with ten or more year’s refinery inspection improving fixed equipment reliability programs. It will require
background. Knowledge of API 5/10/570/653. rising to a higher level of thinking.
Supervisory experience required. 1
The 100 Largest Losses 1972-2001, Large Property Damage
Losses in the Hydrocarbon-Chemical Industries, 20th Edition, 2003,
For confidential consideration, please submit your Marsh’s Risk Consulting Practice, Marsh and McLennan Co.
resume through our website career center at 2
New Forces at Work in Refining – Industry Views of Critical Business
www.sunocoinc.com and Operations Trends, D.J. Peterson and Sergej Mahnovski.
EOE/M/F/D/V Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory, United
States Department of Energy, ISBN 0-8330-3436-7, 2003

20 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 2009 API Inspector SummIT
Call for Papers!
The 2009 Inspector Summit is looking for speakers! Proposal Elements
Industries covered include oil and gas upstream, midstream, Please include the following when submitting a proposal to
downstream, pipeline and power. API will commence the speak at the 2009 Inspector Summit:
second Summit January 27-30, 2009, at the Galveston
Island Convention Center, Galveston, Texas. 1. The title of your presentation.
2. The name of the coordinating session topic listed below.
The following sessions were selected by the Program 3. An abstract of the proposed topic. Please include how
Committee based on need, relevance of topic, and it is currently relevant to the industry, what objectives
feedback provided by attendees of the 2007 Inspector you will cover during the session, and the intended
Summit. Session abstracts are reviewed by the Program audience.
Committee. 4. A brief speaker biography which explains your
qualifications to speak on the topic.
Topic Areas:
5. Please indicate if you are prepared to give your
• Turnaround Planning and Organization
presentation more than once.
• Metallurgy/ Corrosion
6. Please indicate the target level of your paper:
• NDE (advanced)
introductory, intermediate or advanced level.
• Risk Based Inspections (RBI)
• Fitness for Service (FFS)
Your paper proposal should contain enough information
• Regulatory
to allow the Program Committee to make an accurate
• Coatings/Linings and Cathodic Protection
judgment of the content of your proposed presentation.
• Training, Workshops, Intro
• Codes/Standards/Recommended Practice
Submitting a Proposal
• Welding/Repair
By submitting a proposal to speak at an API conference,
• Inspector Roles
the speaker agrees that their presentation and/or title
• Inspection/Mechanical Integrity Programs
will not be commercial in nature and will not promote
• Lessons Learned
specific companies, products or services. If your proposal
• Pipelines Upstream/Downstream
is accepted we may ask that additional information be
included in your presentation. The speaker also agrees that
API will have a non-exclusive right to publish your paper and
presentation. The intended audience will include inspectors
and others involved in inspections and mechanical integrity
assessment in: refining and petrochemical, specialty
chemical, pipeline, production, gas and power, pulp and
paper.

Proposals which include all information mentioned above

should be sent to cunninghamm@api.org. The deadline for
submissions is June 27, 2008.

21 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Notice-Subscription Agency
Orders No Longer Accepted
Please note that the Inspectioneeering Journal will no longer accept
subscription orders of any type via subscription agencies. Due to postal mix-
ups, and poor communication which lead to delayed delivery of Journals and
monetary losses we can no longer accept orders via subscription agencies.
Introduction of this third party to the order and delivery process adds a layer
of complexity which has lead to problems.

Please use the order form in this journal, or you may download an order
form from http://www.Inspectioneering.com/mailorderform2.htm or by
visiting the journal web site at www.Inspectioneering.com

We apologize for any inconvenience. We want to assure you continue to

receive your Inspectioneering Journals, on time. This should reduce your
overall cost, too.

Make sure you subscribe directly with the Inspectioneering Journal for your
2009 subscriptions. Please feel free to contact me with any comments or
feedback. It is appreciated. Greg Alvarado, Chief Editor

22 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL May/June 2008

 Prevention = Safety + Profitability
E2G software offers the winning formula for plant preventative maintenance... that's why major
refiners consider it to be an integral part of their plant business process.
API RBI - The industry standard for risk management and inspection planning, developed
through the API consensus process and documented in API 581

VCESageTM - The benchmark program for equipment review and analysis of structural integrity,
code compliance, re-rating and remaining life evaluations

VCEIntelliJointTM - The “total joint solution” that incorporates knowledge in all the areas required
to effectively solve the root cause of leakage

VCEDamage MechanismsTM - The quick reference guide to identify the potential damage
mechanisms that can cause costly equipment failure

For information, call our Software Help Desk at 216-658-4777.

Smart Technology for Aging Infrastructure

Shaker Heights, OH Houston, TX
www.equityeng.com