Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines最新文献

{"title":"Estimating Landslide Induced Probability of Failure to Pipelines Using a Structured Reductionist Approach","authors":"R. Guthrie, E. Reid","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78157","url":null,"abstract":"Much of North America, and indeed much of the global landscape, is comprised of either locally or regionally steep slopes, river valleys, and weak or unstable geology. Landslides and ground movements continue to impact pipelines that traverse these regions. Pipeline integrity management programs (IMP’s) are increasingly expecting quantitative estimates of ground movement or pipe failure as part of pipeline risk management systems. Quantitative analysis usually relies on one or more of statistics, physical models, and expert judgment. Statistics incorporate ground and pipe behavior (for hazard and vulnerability respectively) over a broad area to infer local probabilities. They carry the weight of big data, but the local application is almost certainly incorrect (variability even for regions exceeds 2 orders of magnitude). Detailed geotechnical (hazard) and soil-pipe interaction and stress (vulnerability) models provide rigorous results, but require substantial effort and/or expert judgment to parameterize the inputs and boundary conditions. We present herein a structured tool to calculate probability of failure (PoF) using expert judgment supported by known, instrumented or observable conditions and statistics (where available). We provide a series of tables used as a basis for nodal calculations along a branch path of a decision tree, and discuss the challenges and results from actual application to over 100 sites in the Interior Plains. The method is intended to be a practical informative approach based on, and limited by, data inputs. It is a flexible fit for purpose assessment that takes advantage of the best available data, however, the method relies on the user to articulate a level of confidence in, or the basis of the results.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121343790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Formalizing Integrity Management Workflows: Towards Integrity Process Modelling","authors":"Alejandro Reyes, O. Huisman","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78512","url":null,"abstract":"Workflows are the fundamental building blocks of business processes in any organization today. These workflows have attributes and outputs that make up various Operational, Management and Supporting processes, which in turn produce a specific outcome in the form of business value. Risk Assessment and Direct Assessment are examples of such processes; they define the individual tasks integrity engineers should carry out.\u0000 According to ISO 55000, achieving excellence in Asset Management requires clearly defined objectives, transparent and consistent decision making, as well as a long-term strategic view. Specifically, it recommends well-defined policies and procedures (processes) to bring about performance and cost improvements, improved risk management, business growth and enhanced stakeholder confidence through compliance and improved reputation. In reality, such processes are interpreted differently all over the world, and the workflows that make up these processes are often defined by individual engineers and experts. An excellent example of this is Risk Assessment, where significant local variations in data sources, threat sources and other data elements, require the business to tailor its activities and models used.\u0000 Successful risk management is about enabling transparent decision-making through clearly defined process-steps, but in practice it requires maintaining a degree of flexibility to tailor the process to the specific organizational needs. In this paper, we introduce common building blocks that have been identified to make up a Risk Assessment process and further examine how these blocks can be connected to fulfill the needs of multiple stakeholders, including data administrators, integrity engineers and regulators. Moving from a broader Business Process view to a more focused Integrity Management view, this paper will demonstrate how to formalize Risk Assessment processes by describing the activities, steps and deliverables of each using Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) as the standard modeling technique and extending it with an integrity-specific notation we have called Integrity Modelling Language or IML.\u0000 It is shown that flexible modelling of integrity processes based on existing standards and best practices is possible within a structured approach; one which guides users and provides a transparent and auditable process inside the organization and beyond, based on commonalities defined by best practice guidelines, such as ISO 55000.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126105184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Optimization of Hydrate Management in Deepwater Gas Well Testing Operations","authors":"Shangfei Song, B. Shi, Weichao Yu, Wang Li, J. Gong","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78269","url":null,"abstract":"Low temperature and high pressure conditions in deep water wells and sub-sea pipelines favour the formation of gas clathrate hydrates which is very undesirable during oil and gas industries operation. The management of hydrate formation and plugging risk is essential for the flow assurance in the oil and gas production. This study aims to show how the hydrate management in the deepwater gas well testing operations in the South China Sea can be optimized. As a result of the low temperature and the high pressure in the vertical 3860 meter-tubing, hydrate would form in the tubing during well testing operations. To prevent the formation or plugging of hydrate, three hydrate management strategies are investigated including thermodynamic inhibitor injection, hydrate slurry flow technology and thermodynamic inhibitor integrated with kinetic hydrate inhibitor. The first method, injecting considerable amount of thermodynamic inhibitor (Mono Ethylene Glycol, MEG) is also the most commonly used method to prevent hydrate formation. Thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor tracking is utilized to obtain the distribution of MEG along the pipeline. Optimal dosage of MEG is calculated through further analysis. The second method, hydrate slurry flow technology is applied to the gas well. Low dosage hydrate inhibitor of antiagglomerate is added into the flow system to prevent the aggregation of hydrate particles after hydrate formation. Pressure Drop Ratio (PDR) is defined to denote the hydrate blockage risk margin. The third method is a recently proposed hydrate risk management strategy which prevents the hydrate formation by addition of Poly-N-VinylCaprolactam (PVCap) as a kinetic hydrate inhibitor (KHI). The delayed effect of PVCap on the hydrate formation induction time ensures that hydrates do not form in the pipe. This method is effective in reducing the injection amount of inhibitor. The problems of the three hydrate management strategies which should be paid attention to in industrial application are analyzed. This work promotes the understanding of hydrate management strategy and provides guidance for hydrate management optimization in oil and gas industry.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130372591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using 2D and 3D Oil Spill Trajectory and Fate Models to Assess the Risk of Accidental Crude Oil Releases Along the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Program Pipeline","authors":"M. Horn, Jeremy Fontenault","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78372","url":null,"abstract":"The proposed Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Program would replace the aging pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin, USA. For the Canadian route, an Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment (EHHRA) was prepared for the National Energy Board (NEB) in Canada. In the United States, an Assessment of Accidental Releases (AAR) and the Supplemental Release Report were part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Minnesota Department of Commerce, Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (DOC-EERA).\u0000 Computational oil spill modeling was used to assess the predicted trajectory (movement), fate (behavior and weathering), and potential effects (impacts) associated with accidental releases of crude oil along the proposed pipeline. This modeling included the 2-dimensional OILMAPLand and 3-dimensional SIMAP models. A total of 64 hypothetical release scenarios were investigated to understand the range of potential trajectories, fates, and effects that may be possible from multiple product types (Bakken, Federated Crude, and Cold Lake Winter Blend), released at any location, under varying environmental conditions.\u0000 Trajectory and fate modeling was used to predict the downstream movement and timing of oil, as well as the expected surface oil thickness, water column contamination, shoreline and sediment oiling, and proportion evaporated to the atmosphere. These results were then used to assess the potential environmental effects to demonstrate the variability of outcomes following a release under different release conditions.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134211057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing Models and Their Limitations to Predict No-Drill Zones for Horizontal Directional Drilling","authors":"Saeed Delara, K. MacKay","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78304","url":null,"abstract":"Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) has become the preferred method for trenchless pipeline installations. Drilling pressures must be limited and a “no-drill zone” determined to avoid exceeding the strength of surrounding soil and rock. The currently accepted industry method of calculating hydraulic fracturing limiting pressure with application of an arbitrary safety factor contains several assumptions that are often not applicable to specific ground conditions. There is also no standard procedure for safety factor determination, resulting in detrimental impacts on drilling operations. This paper provides an analysis of the standard methods and proposes two alternative analytical models to more accurately determine the hydraulic fracture point and acceptable drilling pressure. These alternative methods provide greater understanding of the interaction between the drilling pressures and the surrounding ground strength properties. This allows for more accurate determination of horizontal directional drilling limitations. A comparison is presented to determine the differences in characteristics and assumptions for each model. The impact of specific soil properties and factors is investigated by means of a sensitivity analysis to determine the most critical soil information for each model.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130818382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are Pipelines Being Held to an Unreasonably High Standard of Performance?","authors":"Alan Murray","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78744","url":null,"abstract":"The media and sections of the public have shown recently an acute interest in Pipeline operational performance incident statistics. Published data for North America shows that 99.999% of crude oil and petroleum products shipped by pipelines reach their destination safely. Some pipeline operators claim even better performance, 99.9996 % being one example. However, should failing to deliver 4 barrels of product for every million shipped be a legitimate cause for concern? If not how about the more general case of 1 per one hundred thousand?\u0000 Is pipeline performance being singled out unreasonably when compared to other threats to public and environmental wellbeing such as medical malpractice or industrial waste contamination? Evidence from Canada and elsewhere, indicates that, during their hospital stay, an appreciable number of patients, one in every 18, experience adverse events, such as medication error, injurious falls, infections, and other medical misadventures. Errors (mostly minor), in fulfilling pharmaceutical prescriptions show an even higher error rate — 1 in 4 in one recent study, yet the public appears to be unperturbed.\u0000 A common thread is determining what constitutes an acceptable level of risk whether individual or societal, voluntary or involuntary. Besides providing a broader context for pipeline risk, the paper explores the origin and intent of the environmental screening standard of 1 in 10−6, as well as the concept of setting risk tolerance to be as low as reasonably practicable — ALARP. The question of why there may be a reticence for many Pipeline Regulators to set, as other industries have, a prescriptive value for ALARP is considered.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116160528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Geohazard Management Approach Within Safety Case","authors":"Dario Zapata, Ingrid Pederson, Sean Keane","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78678","url":null,"abstract":"Safety case is utilized within the Enbridge Pipeline Integrity Management Program as a means to provide evidence that the risks affecting the system have been effectively mitigated (LeBlanc, et al. 2016). The safety case is an independent, evidence-based assessment based on system integrity management processes applied across all pipelines. This paper describes the process in which safety case methodology was implemented to manage geohazard threats. The benefits of assessing geohazard and other integrity threats will also be discussed. The safety case report documents the opportunities to address the identified problems in addition to the relationship between hazards, implemented controls, and associated susceptibility.\u0000 To demonstrate that adequate safety controls for geohazard threats have been incorporated into the operational and maintenance phase of the pipeline system, the geohazard management component of the safety case was assessed using a bowtie diagram. The results gave visibility to the geohazard program and its effectiveness. Predefined safety performance metrics with probabilistic and deterministic criteria are evaluated to confirm the geohazard program’s continued effectiveness.\u0000 Results from the safety case assessment identify opportunities for improvement and provide a basis for revision to maintenance, assurance and verification programs. Ultimately the assessment demonstrates that geohazard threats in the pipeline system are being recognized and assessed. The assessment provides evidence that adequate resources and efforts are allocated to mitigate the risk and identifies continuous improvement activities where needed. The safety case report generated as the final portion of an integrity management framework demonstrates risk is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123544896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Safety Culture Assessment and Continuous Monitoring Approach","authors":"Mark S. Jean, Laura P. Zaleschuk","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78150","url":null,"abstract":"Safety culture is not a new concept, with origins dating back to 1986 and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.[1] The recognition of safety culture in organizations and its influence on incidents has been growing, with gaps in safety culture having been cited as a major contributory factor to recent failures in the oil and gas industry including the Piper Alpha event nearly a quarter of a century ago and was most recently identified as a causal factor in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.[2]\u0000 Many different approaches have been developed to measure and assess organizational attitudes and behaviours, with the goal of improving safety culture. Traditional approaches for measurement have focused on:\u0000 ▪ Questionnaires or surveys.\u0000 ▪ Interviews.\u0000 ▪ Observations.\u0000 ▪ Focus groups.\u0000 ▪ Document analysis.\u0000 While these approaches have provided valuable information regarding safety culture, more progressive approaches are being considered by leading companies. The establishment of Safety Culture Indicators and Continuous Monitoring as a method for improving safety culture is becoming more prevalent. This new approach enables companies to leverage the management systems that already are in place for managing their increasingly complex operating environments. Regulators have recognized this too and are beginning to recommend that continuous monitoring be included in a company’s toolbox as an additional approach to assessing internal safety culture.\u0000 This paper describes a comprehensive safety culture maturity model created to provide organizations with a method to review their management system and assess their existing safety culture. The assessment aids the development of a suite of organization-specific indicators to facilitate application of a continuous monitoring approach for ongoing improvement of safety culture.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122544774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Earned Schedule and the Use of Schedule Execution Reporting Metrics","authors":"P. Beck, Dennis Kovacs","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78067","url":null,"abstract":"The traditional approach of managing project performance is with the use of Earned Value Management. There is a recent trend towards the expansion of traditional Earned Value Management practices to include the concept of Earned Schedule.\u0000 Whereas Earned Value provides insight as to how the project is trending in relation to the plan by assessing cost and schedule variances, Earned Schedule focuses on the time element of schedule performance throughout the project execution phase.\u0000 Earned Value, although very effective at providing visibility to cost performance, is not as transparent when it comes to schedule performance over time. Case in point, at completion, irrespective as to how work progressed on the schedule (ahead or behind plan) at completion, the schedule performance index will always be 1.0.\u0000 Earned Schedule overcomes this drawback, providing useful tools to report on schedule performance, and providing visibility to the project state from which to base informed decisions.\u0000 To perform the analysis, Earned Schedule analysis incorporates detail from the baseline and forecast schedules as well as the integrated project management cost report (earned versus planned). In addition to looking at Earned Schedule metrics, other key metrics are factored into this approach to assess overall schedule performance.\u0000 Key metrics derived from the schedule and highlighted in this approach include:\u0000 • Critical Path Length Index (CPLI)\u0000 • Baseline Execution Index (BEI)\u0000 • Total Float Consumption Index (TFCI)\u0000 • To Complete Schedule Performance Index (TSPI)\u0000 • Predicted Forecast Finish Date (PFFD)\u0000 • Schedule Performance Index (time) (SPIt)\u0000 • Independent Estimate At Complete (time) (IEACt)\u0000 The intent of these metrics is to identify trends and assist in predicting project outcomes based on past performance. Since this approach is highly dependent on the schedule data, the more compliant a schedule is to industry best practices the better the quality of the results. The metrics are negatively impacted by recent re-baselining as this causes us to lose historical performance detail.\u0000 Frequent analysis of the schedule execution reporting metrics defined above provides transparency of project performance and brings visibility to early risk triggers in support of a proactive approach to project execution monitoring and control.\u0000 This paper will present a case study demonstrating how additional transparency through this approach highlighted a potential schedule risk. This increased visibility allowed the project team to reprioritize and implement proactive corrective actions to mitigate any potential impact to the project In Service Date (ISD).","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127501636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How Do We (Actually) Know Our Quality Is Improving?","authors":"J. R. Papp, William H. Forbes, M. Yarmuch","doi":"10.1115/IPC2018-78407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78407","url":null,"abstract":"We have all dealt with performance metrics in the pipeline industry. How do we measure operational excellence? Are we prioritizing the right corrective actions? Are our existing metrics fair and driving the right behaviors? Will they recognize success and actually show us and our clients that we are improving?\u0000 This paper describes how Enbridge Major Projects measures and knows our Quality is improving; how we prioritize, focus, and monitor Quality improvement.\u0000 Using our roadmap, your organization can transform existing data streams from anecdotal to well established facts that produce actionable results and drive business objectives.\u0000 To reach this outcome, Enbridge Major Projects quickly matured our Quality Culture by leveraging our strong Safety Culture and habits. On our journey to meaningful overall Quality metrics, Enbridge built a foundation through non-punitive incident reporting using incident resolution tools and a Cost of Quality model.\u0000 Cost of Quality models can be designed and executed in a variety of ways. This paper will focus on applying a model specifically suited for pipeline construction and operational activities. Key topics to be addressed include:\u0000 • basic common principles of an overall Cost of Quality model,\u0000 • various data collection methods to suit the model’s design, and\u0000 • how a Documented Defects Quality cost model allows Enbridge to identify, prioritize, and monitor Quality improvements focused on preventing recurrence and occurrence of Quality issues.\u0000 Examples will be provided for common pipeline applications, including valves, pipe, and other commodities and services. This approach has enabled Enbridge Major Projects to prioritize improvement actions and meet business objectives.\u0000 Applying a Cost of Quality model will enhance your operational excellence and greater adoption would provide the foundation for industry-wide Quality performance metrics that will recognize success and validate that Quality is improving in the pipeline industry.","PeriodicalId":164582,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction, and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131714416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}