Pipeline Technology Journal - 1/2022 RESEARCH • DEVELOPMENT • TECHNOLOGY 11 1. Introduction The European pipeline infrastructure is aging, with transmission pipelines still in operation today that often were constructed more than 50 years ago and have operated well beyond their original design life. Time has taken its toll, and managing the various in- tegrity threats is becoming ever more challenging in the pipeline industry. There are various tools and assessment methods avail- able to assist in ensuring continued safe operation. Of particular note are the various fitness-for-purpose as- sessment methods available (e.g. BS 7910 [1] and API 579 [2]). While these methods may differ in applica- tion, they all have one thing in common: Every as- sessment method is completely reliant on accurate input data. For all the assessment codes, this data in- cludes details of the threat assessed (e.g. dimensions of a crack-like feature) and the material properties (strength and toughness, principally) of the associ- ated section. Advancements in ILI are providing operators with ever more accurate inspection data, with technolo- gies such as ROSEN’s EMAT for crack detection or the RoMat suite for the identification of materials prop- erties, offering unprecedented accuracy and informa- tion relating to the asset in question. Inspection con- ditions in pipeline can vary significantly, which can lead to uncertainty in some measurements. With this in mind, the emphasis on data obtained from in-field campaigns becomes even more important. Therefore, only by engaging with competent engineers and in- spection technologies and techniques can we gain additional confidence regarding safe operation. A benchmark can also be established against which fu- ture ILI data can be assessed. The philosophy of the paramount importance of accurate in-field data can also be adopted when undertaking a direct assess- ment approach for un-piggable pipelines. Therefore, whatever the motivation behind in-field work, the re- quirement for accurate data is absolute. etc.). However, recent advancements in technology have made it possible for the majority of the required data to be obtained in-field, non-destructively. This makes in-field verification an attractive proposition; however, an unintended consequence of the prolifer- ation of new in-field technologies can be the require- ment for multiple independent technicians or third parties to apply all the different techniques. At best, this can lead to severe logistical challenges. At worst, it can result in either multiple digs at the same loca- tion being required, or the correct data not being col- lected due to availability issues. Therefore, a compre- hensive approach to each scenario is needed – ahead of mobilization. While NDT and material property acquisition tech- nologies have improved, and there are increased technology options, it is very easy to forget the over- riding factor of WHY. Before considering mobiliza- tion, a comprehensive understanding of the target must be gained to ensure the best-possible prepara- tions are in place. If mistakes happen at this stage, the consequences could ultimately include inferior data, which could result in failure. 2. ILI Indication and In‑Field Feature Verification Advances in technologies assist technicians with siz- ing and the characterization of certain feature types, but these technologies have not eliminated the need for highly skilled technicians to follow comprehen- sive procedures. Among other things, there is still a need for reference blocks, an understanding of pipe- line networks and an appreciation of defect assess- ments in order to collect the most relevant informa- tion in the field. The increasing complexities of the available technologies have made trained, skilled and competent technicians even more critical. Only with a complete service package can the data assist engi- neers in making informed decisions about maintain- ing throughput of product while operating safely. Historically, to obtain accurate data (either sizing of potential defects or material properties), pipeline sec- tions would have to be removed and subjected to de- structive testing methods. This is intrusive and has obvious disadvantages (e.g. downtime, cost, safety, 2.1 Metal Loss and Geometric Features Metal loss and geometric features have tradition- ally been measured with the likes of micrometers, pit gauges, brass rubbings, bridging bars, etc. These still prove to be a valuable part of in-field validation, but their use can be time-consuming on large and/or