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