05.08.2013 Views

cranfield university mahadi abd murad an integrated structural ...

cranfield university mahadi abd murad an integrated structural ...

cranfield university mahadi abd murad an integrated structural ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

2.3.3 Reliability Analysis of Information<br />

Hallen et al. (2003) explain how the use of probabilistic condition assessment to<br />

evaluate the integrity condition of corroding pipelines is beneficial to the operator or<br />

owner of pipelines because the uncertainties associated with in-line inspection (ILI)<br />

tools, pipeline geometry, corrosion growth rate <strong>an</strong>d others c<strong>an</strong> be modelled <strong>an</strong>d<br />

considered over <strong>an</strong>y chosen time period. By using the <strong>structural</strong> reliability methods, the<br />

probability of failures c<strong>an</strong> be determined for the entire pipeline. The target probabilities<br />

which are established either from the historic failure rates (Greenwood, 2002) or from<br />

risk criteria (ERSG Ltd., 2009), will allow the operator to formulate cost-effective<br />

strategies for the future safe design <strong>an</strong>d operation of the pipelines as agreed by Britto et<br />

al. (2010). By referring to reliability criteria <strong>an</strong>d risk factors, Kharionovski (2006) has<br />

demonstrated his established express method which yields approximate expectations for<br />

the remaining gas pipeline service life-sp<strong>an</strong>.<br />

In their approach to determine the actions that guar<strong>an</strong>tee the safe operation <strong>an</strong>d<br />

cost-effective mainten<strong>an</strong>ce of the corroded pipeline over its expected service life, Hallen<br />

et al. (2003) present how this comparison is carried out in order to assess the benefits of<br />

remedial actions such as conducting repairs, as illustrated in Figure 2.7. According to<br />

them, the time it takes the failure probability to exceed the target probability is assumed<br />

to be the remaining safe life of the pipeline <strong>an</strong>d the time to the next inspection. Figure<br />

2.8 shows the scheme used to investigate the relationship between composite repairs,<br />

maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), corrosion growth rate <strong>an</strong>d remaining<br />

safe life of the assessed pipeline. From that figure, as the composite repairs increase, the<br />

corrosion rate will reduce <strong>an</strong>d the remaining life will increase signific<strong>an</strong>tly. Figure 2.9<br />

shows the relationship between composite repairs <strong>an</strong>d re-inspection intervals. As the<br />

number of composite repair increases, the re-inspection interval will be longer.<br />

21

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!