0% found this document useful (0 votes)
98 views1 page

Start: Corrosion Rate (CR) Determination Defect Classification Material Identification Design Data Defect Dimension

The document outlines the process for determining corrosion rates and assessing fitness for service of pipeline anomalies. It includes receiving inspection data, classifying defects, determining corrosion scenarios, conducting fitness for service assessments under different corrosion rate scenarios according to industry standards, analyzing the results, and providing a final recommendation.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
98 views1 page

Start: Corrosion Rate (CR) Determination Defect Classification Material Identification Design Data Defect Dimension

The document outlines the process for determining corrosion rates and assessing fitness for service of pipeline anomalies. It includes receiving inspection data, classifying defects, determining corrosion scenarios, conducting fitness for service assessments under different corrosion rate scenarios according to industry standards, analyzing the results, and providing a final recommendation.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

START

Output
• ILI Data
ILI and UT
• Pipeline Design Data Received Data Tool Tolerance Value
Interpretation
• UT Verification Data

Correcting ILI Data


Input
Corrosion Rate
(CR) Determination
Nominal Thickness Determination
Input
Defect Classification
Material Identification 1. Maximum CR Values.
Design Data Defect a. Based on UT Verification Data
Dimension b. Evaluation Method ( Local Metal Loss )
c. Design Pressure 4.69 MPa and MAOP 1.79 MPa
d. Factor E ( 0.85 )
Output 2. Average CR Values.
e. Based on UT Verification Data
CR Scenario Determination f. Evaluation Method ( Local Metal Loss )
g. Design Pressure 4.69 MPa and MAOP 1.79 MPa
h. Factor E ( 0.85 )
3. Individual Growth CR Values.
i. Based on UT Verification Data
j. Evaluation Method ( Local Metal Loss )
k. Design Pressure 4.69 MPa and MAOP 1.79 MPa
l. Factor E ( 0.85 )

Input
FCA Determination for each
CR Scenario
Input Input
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
FFS Assessment
and FFS-2 Fitness For FFS Assessment for each Scenario
Using Inspect Codeware
Service 2016

Analysis

Determining Anomalies
Compliance

Result and
Recommendation

END

You might also like