Download - PETROBOT Tank Field Trials
14/11/2016
Final Presentation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands –25 October 2016Speaker: Russell Brown - Chevron
PETROBOT Tank Field Trials
14/11/2016
Objectives of the Field Testing Phase Testing Operational procedures Testing systems under field conditions
Sonar Floor mapping Path following – mapping a plate Inspection: MEC, UT
Discussion on robot capabilities Conclusions
Content
14/11/2016
The final phase of testing (following mock-up testing)is aimed at:
Development of Operational and Inspection procedures
Testing the robot in realistic conditions
The consortium members involved with Field testing are:
Objective of Field Testing
A-Hak Industrial Services Robot mobility
Innospection MEC Sensor Technology
GE Inspection Robotics (previously ALSTOM
Inspection Robotics)
Navigation Solution
VOPAK; Shell Field Tests
14/11/2016
The PETROBOT Tank Inspection video provides an impression of the field testing in tanks provided by VOPAK and Shell
Video impression
14/11/2016
Part of the Field Testing activity in PETROBOT was the development of a full set of procedures:
Operational Procedure
Risk analysis Procedure
Robot Deployment and Inspection Procedure
These procedures allow the service provider to prepare the online inspection with the tank Owner, support a Task Risk Analysis, and carry out the robot deployment
The procedures have been successfully tested during the Field test at VOPAK and Shell
Phase 1: Operational and Inspection procedure
14/11/2016
Reliable deployment is a must: In case of (power/mechanical) failure the robot must be retrievable
Following measures have been taken:
MEC-magnets self-release Strong tether cable to pull robot out Procedure to plan and verify robot trajectory
Define and avoid no-go areas
In case the above measures fail, escalate with: Second mobile robot may be deployed Human entering tank
Good preparation is a key measure to reduce this risk
(Phase 1) Retrieval of robot in case of failure ( rescue)
Manway(entry point)
Sump/piping
Roof support
Cannot be covered
for inspection
Mixer
Heating coils
14/11/2016
Aspects that make Inspection of Tank Floors challenging:
Large area: 40 m diameter: 1200 m2; for comparison: large vessel: 100 m2; 10 km pipeline, 12”: ~10.000 m2
The tank floor surface is divided in plates, to be scanned individually
A tank contains obstacles and the floor may be covered with coating, with deposits
Relevant defects can be rather narrow (pits 1-2 cm wide)
Phase 2 – General challenges for Tank Floor Inspection
PETROBOT
0
20
40
60
80
100
<1.3 mm 1.3 mm -50% WT
50-66 %WT
Gen.Corrosion
Min
. det
ecti
on
(%
)
Remaining Wall (mm, %)
Minimum Detection Requirements(API 653 - Annex G)
Max.POD
Min.PODSupport Bracket
Scaffold Pole
Plate Welds
1 cm
14/11/2016
Two field tests have been organized:
At VOPAK Rotterdam Terminal; Aim was: Test Operational and Inspection procedure (Phase 1) Reviewed by stakeholders (Operations, Safety (HSSE) staff, Inspection,
Maintenance)
At Shell Pernis Refinery: Aim was: Test Inspection performance and (again) Operational procedures Procedures developed at VOPAK were considered fit for application; no
changes required
Phase 2 - Field Tests – Planning/Preparation
14/11/2016
Tank properties:
Test program
Test at VOPAK – set up
Diameter 15 m
Height 14 m
Floor plate thickness 6 mm
Annular Plate
thickness
10 mm
Content Water, 5 m height
Roof manway 24 inch
Day 1: Setup preparation 8 hours
Day 2: Launch robot in tank 1 hour
Test systems in tank 6 hours
Day 3 Test systems in tank 4 hour
Retrieve robot/prepare for
transport
4 hours
Day 4 Review and Report 2 hours
The Field test resulted in 1.5 inspection day, allowing testing of mobilization and localization
14/11/2016
Operational Test at VOPAK - results
Operations went smoothly: Set-up of the robot Lifting robot on Tank Entry in tank
First plate edge scanning done Useful learnings (several small issues;
could be corrected before next test at Shell
CONCLUSIONS: Planning & Operational procedure proved to work
well Useful scan tests; problems identified and
corrected
14/11/2016
Inspection Test at Shell – set up
Tank properties:
Test program
Diameter 24 m
Height 14 m
Floor plate thickness 9 mm
Annular Plate thickness 12 mm
Internal surface protection coated
Content Water, 5 m height
Roof manway 24 inch
Day 1: Passes, Permits, Work plan
meeting, Setup preparation
8 hours
Day 2: Shell Safety Training (1/2 day);
Launch robot in tank
8 hour
Day 3 Test systems in tank 8 hour
Day 4 Test systems in tank 8 hours
Day 5 Test systems in tank ; Retrieve
robot/prepare for transport;
Review and Report
8 hours
The Field test resulted in 2.5 inspection day in the tank
14/11/2016
Sonar allows localizing the robot and identifying obstacles Position of obstacle transferred to pinger-based localization system, to
define no-go areas
Test result 1: Sonar
Pipe / Obstacle
Note: Weld edges are also visible (confirms floor plan orientation)
14/11/2016
Test 2: Floorplan Mapping
Robot makes long scans to develop floorplan; Robot operates in edge detection mode Initial floorplan is adjusted till accurate
This allows the robot to localize and return to individual plates,and inspect individual plates • Then map one plate after the
other while inspecting
14/11/2016
Four experiments done to demonstrate accuracy of floor mapping (2 examples shown)
Conclusion: mapping worked very well; small improvements implemented
Test 3: Floor mapping accuracy
Learning: offset of edges when crossing an edge longitudinally; avoid such readings
Good mapping result
14/11/2016
Once plate edges are mapped out, the plate is automatically scanned
Conclusion: Path following works well
Test 4: Path following - to inspect a plate
• Once the edges are known, scanning takes 5-7 minutes
• Accuracy of path checked by re-mapping long edges after end of plate scan; generally accurate within 5 cm
14/11/2016
MEC system tested on 3 tank floor plates ex. service containing mature corrosion
CONCLUSION: Very good match between MEC results and field of pitting
More extensive (quantitative) comparison underway (using high-resolution UT (1x1mm pixel; laser mapping)
TEST 5 - Inspection performance – offline inspection floor plates
14/11/2016
In 2014 the floor was scanned with SLOFEC (3 defects reported in whole tank)
During the PETROBOT tests 2floor plates were fully inspected with the MEC-robot
In Floor Plate 26 one defect was reported in 2014(UT: 6.5 mm remaining WT in 9 mm nominal WT)
To verify results, 3 plates removed
Test 6: Inspection results Shell tank - 1
Plate 1.X
Y
Plate 2
Plate 3 MEC 2016 results
.X
Y
Defect reported at X=333 cm, Y=56 cm
Plate 1
Position Plate 1: X=250-350 cm; Y=5-55 cmCoordinates used in 2014 SLOFEC inspection
Note: 2014 SLOFEC data reported with 2 mm threshold
SLOFEC 2014 results
14/11/2016
These floor plates contain numerous (very) local defects Depth range 3 -4 mm (>50% Remaining-WT, in 9 mm nominal WT) MEC results show good detection of pattern of pits
However, apparent variability in sensitivity (plate 1 under-reported, Plate 2 over-reported)
Test 6 – comparison actual defects in plate - 2
Plate 1
. X
Y
Plate 2
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.52.6
2.7
Follow up: • Re-analysis MEC results• Verify with MEC-P19 Floor
Scanner (high-resolution scanner)
14/11/2016
Good agreement after modifying gain; Note: for these defects the API-653 target POD is 40-60% min. detection
Possible lift-off variation; improvement is suggested to control lift-off during scanning
Test 6 – Re-analysis MEC data on removed plates - 3
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.52.6
2.7
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
Plate1
Plate2
Petrobot Scan Result Removed Plate Area (modified Gain)
MEC-P19 Scan ResultRemoved Plate
Removed Plate(Underside View)
Plate1
Plate2
Plate1
Plate2
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.52.6
2.7
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.52.6
2.7
14/11/2016
During the Field Tests all major functionality of the Tank Inspection Robot was tested: Safe deployment through roof manway Mapping floor plan & plate edges Automated inspection of plates
The combined testing in the lab, in the mockup and field tanks demonstrated that the Tank Inspection Robot satisfies the requirements intended at the design, to operate in tanks in the category: light product, <40m.
The inspection capability of the MEC unit was tested extensively Testing of 3 large floor plates with mature corrosion;
Showed consistent detection of pitting defects Testing of two floor plates in the Shell Test tank were verified by removal 3 small plates:
2014 SLOFEC data not showing most of the pitting MEC showed some variation in sensitivity; effect within requirements of API-653
Re-analysis & comparison with high-resolution MEC-F19 scanner showed consistent results The MEC Unit demonstrated good detection capability overall;
Need to consider improvements, e.g. to reduce impact of lift-off
Sizing accuracy of MEC tool not yet quantified rigorously (looks reasonable; analysis ongoing after PETROBOT)
The PETROBOT Tank Robot has been invited for further testing in 2016, to demonstrate readiness for deployment in product tanks in 2017
Discussion of Field Testing results
14/11/2016
The Field tests demonstrated that All major functionality of the Tank Inspection Robot is working well, The procedures adequately supported safe and efficient deployment
The Tank Inspection Robot is ready for use within its design window
The Tank Inspection Robot has a differentiating capability to cover all accessible area of the floor in a controlled manner, like traditional floor scanning
The PETROBOT Tank Inspection Robot is ready for commercial maturation
Conclusions
14/11/2016
www.petrobotproject.eu