Implementation of Reliability-Based Criteria for Corrosion Assessment

R. Adianto, M. Nessim, S. Kariyawasam, Terry Huang
{"title":"Implementation of Reliability-Based Criteria for Corrosion Assessment","authors":"R. Adianto, M. Nessim, S. Kariyawasam, Terry Huang","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an era where pipeline safety is of paramount interest, vintage pipelines with corrosion have to be managed responsibly. Optimization of corrosion mitigation for these pipelines has a significant effect on the industry’s management systems and related costs. To help optimize the corrosion management process, reliability-based limit state design (LSD) corrosion assessment criteria have been developed for onshore pipeline as part of a joint industry project. The LSD approach is a simplified form of the reliability-based approach. It achieves risk or safety consistency within a certain tolerance, while utilizing a deterministic procedure that is easier to apply. The overall methodology and development of the criteria are described in a companion paper. This paper describes the application of the LSD corrosion criteria to real pipeline cases and evaluation of the results.\n The performance of the LSD criteria, as determined by the number of corrosion repairs required, was compared to that of the CSA Z662 deterministic assessment criteria and the full probabilistic criteria used by TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TCPL) to determine if the criteria lead to practical solutions for real cases. The CSA criteria use safety factors that are not directly based on the risk level associated with the pipeline, while the TCPL criteria utilize pipeline-specific reliability targets. The comparison was conducted using a comprehensive set of TCPL pipeline cases that covered a wide range of diameters (NPS 6 to 42), hoop stress-to-SMYS ratios (0.4 to 0.8) and corrosion densities (0.625 to 6508 features per km). The results show that the LSD criteria perform similarly to the TCPL reliability-based criteria, and that both are generally less conservative than the CSA deterministic criteria.\n The results demonstrate that the LSD criteria provide a simple and deterministic procedure that capitalizes on the benefits of more complex reliability analyses in eliminating unnecessary conservatism and focusing on the repairs required to achieve consistent safety levels for all cases. Thus, these criteria will enable operators to maximize risk reduction for the dollar spent.","PeriodicalId":273758,"journal":{"name":"Volume 1: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 1: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In an era where pipeline safety is of paramount interest, vintage pipelines with corrosion have to be managed responsibly. Optimization of corrosion mitigation for these pipelines has a significant effect on the industry’s management systems and related costs. To help optimize the corrosion management process, reliability-based limit state design (LSD) corrosion assessment criteria have been developed for onshore pipeline as part of a joint industry project. The LSD approach is a simplified form of the reliability-based approach. It achieves risk or safety consistency within a certain tolerance, while utilizing a deterministic procedure that is easier to apply. The overall methodology and development of the criteria are described in a companion paper. This paper describes the application of the LSD corrosion criteria to real pipeline cases and evaluation of the results. The performance of the LSD criteria, as determined by the number of corrosion repairs required, was compared to that of the CSA Z662 deterministic assessment criteria and the full probabilistic criteria used by TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TCPL) to determine if the criteria lead to practical solutions for real cases. The CSA criteria use safety factors that are not directly based on the risk level associated with the pipeline, while the TCPL criteria utilize pipeline-specific reliability targets. The comparison was conducted using a comprehensive set of TCPL pipeline cases that covered a wide range of diameters (NPS 6 to 42), hoop stress-to-SMYS ratios (0.4 to 0.8) and corrosion densities (0.625 to 6508 features per km). The results show that the LSD criteria perform similarly to the TCPL reliability-based criteria, and that both are generally less conservative than the CSA deterministic criteria. The results demonstrate that the LSD criteria provide a simple and deterministic procedure that capitalizes on the benefits of more complex reliability analyses in eliminating unnecessary conservatism and focusing on the repairs required to achieve consistent safety levels for all cases. Thus, these criteria will enable operators to maximize risk reduction for the dollar spent.
基于可靠性的腐蚀评估标准的实施
在一个管道安全至关重要的时代,有腐蚀的老式管道必须得到负责任的管理。这些管道的腐蚀缓解优化对行业管理系统和相关成本具有重大影响。为了帮助优化腐蚀管理过程,作为联合行业项目的一部分,针对陆上管道开发了基于可靠性的极限状态设计(LSD)腐蚀评估标准。LSD方法是基于可靠性方法的简化形式。它在一定的容忍度内实现风险或安全一致性,同时利用更容易应用的确定性程序。标准的总体方法和发展在一篇配套论文中进行了描述。本文介绍了LSD腐蚀准则在实际管道案例中的应用及评价结果。将LSD标准的性能与CSA Z662确定性评估标准和TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TCPL)使用的全概率标准进行比较,以确定该标准是否能够为实际情况提供实用的解决方案。CSA标准使用不直接基于与管道相关的风险级别的安全因素,而TCPL标准使用管道特定的可靠性目标。比较使用了一组全面的TCPL管道案例,涵盖了广泛的直径范围(NPS 6至42),环向应力- smys比率(0.4至0.8)和腐蚀密度(0.625至6508特征/ km)。结果表明,LSD标准的性能与基于TCPL的可靠性标准相似,并且两者的保守性通常低于CSA确定性标准。结果表明,LSD标准提供了一个简单而确定的程序,它利用了更复杂的可靠性分析的优势,消除了不必要的保守性,并专注于为所有情况实现一致的安全水平所需的维修。因此,这些标准将使作业者能够最大限度地降低风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信