Moreover, what about multiple inspections? The more combination inspections we perform, the more complex the data we acquire, making it vital for us to be able to accurately analyze data from multiple sources. Given this, there are several challenges that must be overcome to provide accurate results, i.e. sensor deflection, sagging, magnetic flux disturbances, or single inspections. Ignoring these challenges can cause assumptions such as oversimplification of the pipe geometry simply because pipelines are manufactured differently. For example, not all pipe joints are straight, have perfectly rounded surfaces or contain consistent wall thicknesses.

Fortunately, NDT Global has investigated the challenges that traditional FEA assessments do not consider along with the multiple variables that are often ignored during combined inspections.

For example, the data acquired from our tools is handled by the same pipeline integrity engineer from beginning to end. Our integrity engineers are trained in the analyses process and understand the most important aspects of the technology. They also work alongside our analysis team, who have the best understanding of our tool tolerances.

If an operator invests in an inspection with two, or even three of all of these solutions, a complete and accurate model is born. This provides insights based on facts, ridding interpretations and oversimplifications that the common approach ignores. 

Figure No. 1 on the left is an FEA visualization: a model of a pipe joint that incorporates wall thickness readings, real pipeline geometry and crack-like features. The image visualizes the results of a combined technology inline inspection: a complete joint (spool) incorporating the most realistic pipe geometry, accurate wall thickness measurements and crack defects that include depth profiling. The results can then be understood in terms of failure pressures, combined stresses, remaining life, and future and fatigue life.  

Included in this visualization is a model predicting pressure scenarios and includes inputs such as cycle changes and hydrotest pressures. In conclusion, to leverage an FEA in the most accurate way possible, assessments should be conducted be highly skilled engineers who can both understand the data and can properly handle the data from beginning to end.  

For best results, Finite Element Analysis should incorporate a combination of datasets from multiple runs and provide insights from complex data so operators can receive results that are precise and truly applicable to their integrity management program.