Probability of Failure Associated with Design and Safety Factors for Intact and Corroded Pipes under Internal Pressure
Publication: Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 12, Issue 3
Abstract
The assessment of reliability levels associated with the design and safety factors (DFs and SFs) is important for modern pipeline engineering to achieve probabilistic design using a conventional deterministic format. To this end, this paper evaluates the probabilities of failure (POFs) for different pipe configurations, corrosion defects, and DF/SFs. Two limit states are considered: the yielding of intact pipes based on Barlow’s equation and the failure of corroded pipes based on the RSTRENG model under internal pressure. The uncertainties of all the important variables are considered, including the RSTRENG model error. The POFs associated with different DF/SFs are calculated and discussed; the safety levels (e.g., safety class) of pipes based on the different DF/SFs are also determined. The DFs commonly used for the yielding of intact pipes are found to be in the highest safety class. The SFs used for corroded pipes based on the RSTRENG model are also found to be in the highest safety class for long corrosion defects but in the lowest safety class for short corrosion defects.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank MITACS for providing partial funding for this project.
Disclaimer
Any information or data pertaining to Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc., or its affiliates, contained in this paper was provided to the authors with the express permission of Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc. or its affiliates. However, this paper is the work and opinion of the authors and is not to be interpreted as Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc.’s, or its affiliates’, position or procedure regarding matters referred to in this paper. Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc. and its affiliates and their respective employees, officers, director, and agents shall not be liable for any claims for loss, damage, or costs, of any kind whatsoever, arising from the errors, inaccuracies, or incompleteness of the information and data contained in this paper or for any loss, damage, or costs that may arise from the use or interpretation of this paper.
References
Ahammed, M., and R. E. Melchers. 1996. “Reliability estimation of pressurised pipelines subject to localised corrosion defects.” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 69 (3): 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-0161(96)00009-9.
Amaya-Gómez, R., M. Sánchez-Silva, E. Bastidas-Arteaga, F. Schoefs, and F. Muñoz. 2019. “Reliability assessments of corroded pipelines based on internal pressure: A review.” Eng. Fail. Anal. 98 (19): 190–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.01.064.
API (American Petroleum Institute). 2018. Line pipe, API specification 5L. 46th ed. Washington, DC: API.
ASME. 2012. Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. ASME B31G-2012. New York: ASME.
ASME. 2018a. Guide for gas transmission and distribution piping systems. ASME B31.8-2018. New York: ASME.
ASME. 2018b. Welded and seamless wrought steel pipe ASME standard. ASME B36.10M-2018. New York: ASME.
ASME. 2019. Pipeline transportation systems for liquids and slurries. ASME B31.4-2019. New York: ASME.
Au, S. K., J. Ching, and J. L. Beck. 2007. “Application of subset simulation methods to reliability benchmark problems.” Struct. Saf. 29 (3): 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2006.07.008.
Bai, Y. 2001. “Elsevier ocean engineering series.” Chap. 14 of Remaining strength of corroded pipes, 229–255. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Breton, T., J. C. Sanchez-Gheno, J. L. Alamilla, and J. Alvarez-Ramirez. 2010. “Identification of failure type in corroded pipelines: A Bayesian probabilistic approach.” J. Hazard. Mater. 179 (1–3): 628–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.03.049.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 1992. Code of practice for pipelines. Part 2: Pipeline on land—Design, construction and installation. BS 8010-2.8. London: BSI.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2019. Oil and gas pipeline systems. Z662:19. Toronto: CSA.
Francis, A., R. J. Espiner, and A. M. Edwards. 2000. “Guidelines for the use of structural reliability and risk based techniques to justify the operation of onshore pipelines at design factors greater than 0.72.” In Proc., 21 World Gas Conf. Oslo, Norway: International Gas Union Secretariat.
Green, K. P., and T. Jackson. 2015. “Rail is quite safe, but pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas.” Accessed August 14, 2015. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/green-jackson-rail-is-quite-safe-but-pipelines-are-the-safest-way-to-transport-oil-and-gas.
Hasofer, A. M., and N. C. Lind. 1974. “An exact and invariant first order reliability format.” J. Eng. Mech. 100 (1): 111–121.
Ibrahim, Y. 1991. “Observations on applications of importance sampling in structural reliability analysis.” Struct. Saf. 9 (4): 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(91)90049-F.
Jiao, G., T. Sotberg, R. Bruschi, and R. Igland. 1997. “The SUPERB project: Linepipe statistical properties and implications in design of offshore pipelines.” In Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 45–56. New York: ASME.
Kiefner, J. F., and P. H. Vieth. 1989. A modified criterion for evaluating the remaining strength of corroded pipes. Washington, DC: Pipeline Research Committee, American Gas Association.
Maxey, W. A., J. F. Kiefner, R. J. Eiber, and A. R. Duffy. 1971. “Ductile fracture initiation, propagation and arrest in cylindrical vessels fracture toughness.” In Fracture Toughness, Proc., 1971 National Symp. on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514. 70–81. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
McLamp, M., P. Hopkins, M. Marley, and M. Nessim. 2002. “A justification for designing and operating pipelines up to stresses of 80% SMYS.” In Proc., 2002 4th Int. Pipeline Conf., 745–757. New York: ASME.
Melchers, R. E., and A. T. Beck. 2018. Structural reliability analysis and prediction. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.
Netto, T. A., U. S. Ferraz, and S. F. Estefen. 2005. “The effect of corrosion defects on the burst pressure of pipelines.” J. Constr. Steel Des. 61 (8): 1185–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.02.010.
Olsson, A., G. Sandberg, and O. Dahlblom. 2003. “On Latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis.” Struct. Saf. 25 (1): 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(02)00039-5.
PHMSA (United States Department of Transportation). 2020. “Pipeline failure causes: PHMSA.” Accessed October 2, 2020. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/incident-reporting/accident-investigation-division/pipeline-failure-causes.
Rashki, M., M. Miri, and M. Azhdary Moghaddam. 2012. “A new efficient simulation method to approximate the probability of failure and most probable point.” Struct. Saf. 39 (Nov): 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.06.003.
Sotberg, T., and B. J. Leira. 1994. “Reliability-based pipeline design and code calibration.” In Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 351–363. New York: ASME.
Sotberg, T., T. Moan, R. Bruschi, G. Jiao, and K. J. MCrk. 1997. “The SUPERB project: Recommended target safety levels for limit state based design of offshore pipelines.” In Proc., Pipeline Technology: OMAE 1997; Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and ARCTIC Engineering, 71–78. New York: ASME.
Teixeira, A. P., C. G. Soares, T. A. Netto, and S. F. Estefen. 2008. “Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects.” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 85 (4): 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.002.
Zhou, W., and G. X. Huang. 2012. “Model error assessments of burst capacity models for corroded pipelines.” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 99–100 (Nov): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2012.06.001.
Ziha, K. 1995. “Descriptive sampling in structural safety.” Struct. Saf. 17 (1): 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(94)00038-R.
Zimmerman, T. J. E., A. Cosham, P. Hopkins, and N. Sanderson. 1998. “Can limit states design be used to design a pipeline above 80% SMYS?” In Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. New York: ASME.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 12 • Issue 3 • August 2021
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 8, 2020
Accepted: Nov 16, 2020
Published online: Mar 17, 2021
Published in print: Aug 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Aug 17, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.