Bridging the Gaps: How Pipeline Operators Can Solve Missing Data Challenges
Introduction
Missing or incomplete pipeline records create significant risks for integrity management. Whether due to legacy system acquisitions, poor historical record-keeping, or rushed construction booms, data gaps can make it difficult for operators to:
✔ Confirm material properties and seam weld types
✔ Validate Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP)
✔ Ensure regulatory compliance (49 CFR §192 & §195)
✔ Accurately assess risk and prioritize repairs
However, new advancements in inline inspection (ILI) technology—including material validation tools—are transforming how operators verify missing data. These ILI-based material validation tools can determine pipeline material properties without the need for cut-outs or destructive testing, reducing the cost and complexity of data reconstruction.
This blog explores practical ways to close pipeline data gaps, including the latest ILI technologies that help operators verify material properties without excavation.
1. Digitize & Centralize Legacy Records
The Problem:
🔹 Many pipeline records are scattered across paper files, scanned PDFs, spreadsheets, and legacy databases.
🔹 Material, pressure test, and ILI data may be stored separately, making it difficult to correlate information.
The Solution:
📌 Digitize and integrate all available records into a centralized database.
✔ Use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and AI-driven tools to extract data from old records.
✔ Create a single GIS-based integrity platform where all pipeline data is searchable.
✔ Cross-reference ILI, pressure test, and material records to identify inconsistencies.
💡 Example: An operator with 40 years of paper-based pipeline records digitizes them, allowing engineers to search for material specifications instantly, rather than manually reviewing binders of documents.
2. Use ILI-Based Material Validation for Missing Construction Records
The Problem:
🔹 Older pipelines (pre-1970s) often lack documented pipe grade, seam type, and coating records.
🔹 Without this data, remaining strength calculations and crack growth modeling become unreliable.
🔹 Traditional cut-out sampling and lab testing for material verification can be expensive and time-consuming.
The Solution:
📌 Use ILI-based material validation tools to verify pipeline properties without excavation.
✔ Material validation ILI tools can assess pipeline steel grade, wall thickness, and seam type in real time.
✔ Some ILI tools use Magnetic Acoustic Resonance (MAR) or Eddy Current techniques to estimate pipeline material strength.
✔ Operators can now verify material properties system-wide without removing pipeline segments.
💡 Example: An operator acquires a 50-year-old pipeline with no material records. Instead of conducting costly cut-outs at multiple locations, the company deploys an ILI tool with material validation capability to confirm pipe grade, seam weld type, and wall thickness across the entire system.
3. Use ILI to Reconstruct Integrity Histories
The Problem:
🔹 Many acquired pipelines lack inspection history, making it difficult to assess corrosion growth rates and anomaly trends.
🔹 Without historical data, it’s unclear if an anomaly is stable or actively growing.
The Solution:
📌 Use multiple ILI runs to create a corrosion growth model.
✔ Conduct baseline ILI as soon as possible after acquiring an asset.
✔ Compare against prior ILI runs (if available) to calculate corrosion growth rates.
✔ Use machine learning to predict future integrity risks based on ILI trends.
💡 Example: An operator acquires a pipeline with no ILI history and performs a high-resolution MFL & UT run to establish a baseline. Within 3 years, a second ILI is conducted to measure corrosion growth trends, allowing for optimized dig prioritization.
4. Validate Missing MAOP Records with Pressure Testing & Engineering Analysis
The Problem:
🔹 Many pipelines lack pressure test records, making it difficult to confirm Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP).
🔹 The PHMSA Mega Rule (49 CFR §192.624) requires operators to reconfirm MAOP for pipelines lacking traceable, verifiable, and complete (TVC) records.
The Solution:
📌 Use hydrostatic testing, engineering analysis, or ILI-based material verification to confirm MAOP.
✔ Hydrostatic testing can re-establish MAOP for pipelines missing pressure test records.
✔ Alternative MAOP reconfirmation (ECA) uses fracture mechanics modeling to assess pipeline integrity without pressure testing.
✔ Material validation ILI tools can provide pipe strength data, supplementing engineering assessments.
💡 Example: A gas transmission operator lacking MAOP records for a pre-1970 pipeline opts for an ILI-based material validation run, using the results to support an engineering critical assessment (ECA) instead of conducting hydrotesting.
5. Conduct Targeted Field Verifications to Identify Construction Defects
The Problem:
🔹 During construction booms, documentation errors may result in weld misalignment, missing girth weld records, or coating inconsistencies.
🔹 Without field validation, unknown construction defects could pose long-term integrity risks, leading to potential failures.
🔹 Coating damage from improper handling or application may go undetected, increasing corrosion risks.
The Solution:
📌 Use a combination of direct examinations (digs), remote sensing, and CP surveys to verify pipeline construction quality.
✔ Excavate suspect pipeline segments based on ILI anomaly detection, such as dent and geometry pig data identifying misaligned welds.
✔ Use drones, LiDAR, and infrared thermography to indirectly assess coating conditions without excavation.
✔ Integrate high-resolution mapping (GPS tagging) for future traceability—ensuring that as-built documentation is accurate and coating conditions are well-documented.
✔ Conduct ground-based Cathodic Protection (CP) surveys (CIPS, DCVG, or ACVG) to:
Detect coating damage by identifying CP current demand fluctuations.
Locate coating disbondment areas where CP shielding may occur.
Verify that the CP system is functioning properly over time to protect pipeline integrity.
💡 Example: A pipeline built during a shale boom in 2010 lacks complete girth weld documentation. The operator:
🔹 Uses ILI dent detection data to identify weld misalignment, prioritizing key locations for excavation.
🔹 Deploys drones with thermographic imaging to detect coating disbondment on aboveground segments.
🔹 Conducts a DCVG survey to pinpoint coating holidays and assess CP effectiveness in buried pipeline sections.
🔹 Updates GIS and GPS-tagged mapping to improve long-term asset traceability for future integrity assessments.
📌 By integrating CP surveys with ILI, remote sensing, and direct examinations, operators can bridge data gaps, verify pipeline integrity, and prevent costly future failures.
6. Automate & Standardize Data Collection for Future Pipelines
The Problem:
🔹 Newly built pipelines sometimes repeat the mistakes of the past, with inconsistent or missing as-built records.
🔹 Operators struggle to ensure that future pipelines have complete TVC records from day one.
The Solution:
📌 Require real-time digital documentation and standardized data collection during construction.
✔ Mandate electronic as-built data collection for new pipelines.
✔ Use GPS-enabled tagging for welds, CP test stations, and pipeline features.
✔ Require QA/QC documentation uploads in real time to prevent missing records.
💡 Example: A pipeline project requires all welds, pressure tests, and CP stations to be digitally recorded and uploaded in real time, ensuring no critical records are lost post-construction.
Key Takeaways: Closing the Data Gaps in Pipeline Integrity
✔ New ILI-based material validation tools help verify pipeline properties without excavation.
✔ Digitizing legacy records improves data accessibility & consistency.
✔ ILI data can be leveraged to reconstruct missing inspection histories.
✔ Pressure test validation and ECA methods ensure MAOP compliance.
✔ Direct examinations and field verifications detect undocumented construction defects.
✔ Automating data collection ensures future pipelines don’t suffer the same record-keeping failures.
Conclusion
Missing pipeline records don’t have to be a roadblock to effective integrity management. With advanced ILI technology, material validation tools, and data centralization, operators can reconstruct lost data, ensure compliance, and enhance pipeline safety.
📌 Final Thought: A pipeline’s reliability depends on the quality of its data. Closing record gaps today prevents integrity surprises tomorrow.
The information provided in this blog, Bridging the Gaps: How Pipeline Operators Can Solve Missing Data Challenges, is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional engineering, legal, or regulatory advice. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, pipeline operators should consult with qualified professionals and adhere to all applicable industry standards, regulations (such as 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195), and company-specific policies when addressing missing data challenges.
This blog does not endorse or promote any specific product, tool, or service. The methodologies and technologies discussed, including material validation tools, inline inspections, and data verification techniques, should be evaluated based on specific pipeline conditions, risk assessments, and regulatory compliance requirements.
The author and publisher disclaim any liability for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages or losses resulting from the use or reliance on the information provided. Pipeline operators remain responsible for making informed decisions based on sound engineering judgment and industry best practices.
