There is currently great disparity in approaches and level of rigor applied to risk assessment by pipeline operators. This is largely due to the absence of complete standards or guidelines covering this complex topic. The disparity leads to inconsistent and problematic risk management, as was discussed in a previous column. Most operators desire sound and […]
Results for Risk Modeling
Pipeline Risk Assessment—A Measurement Tool
Last time, we introduced the concept of essential elements for pipeline risk assessment. These are the “let’s all get on the same page” aspects that every risk assessment should have in common. An important Essential Element calls for the use of measurements instead of any other kind of rating scheme (eg, indexes, points, scores, descriptors, […]
PL Risk Management—The Essential Elements of Risk Assessment
As the desire for more robust pipeline risk management grows, so too does the need for superior risk assessment. A formal risk assessment provides the structure to increase understanding, reduce subjectivity, and ensure that important considerations are not overlooked. Associated decision-making is therefore more consistent and reliable when formal techniques are used. But has pipeline […]
I want to keep using our relative points scoring system. I don’t see why we should change.
Perhaps first question is this: ‘is your scoring system really giving you new knowledge and useful insights into actual risks?’ If not, then that alone should be a compelling reason to change—especially when modern risk assessment is both more efficient and less expensive. See more extensive discussion here.
Cracking doesn’t really progress in a linear fashion. It shouldn’t be modeled that way. Actually, corrosion doesn’t either.
True. You can put in non-linear equations as part of the TTF estimate. A risk assessment should represent the actual underlying science as much as possible/practical.
Why do I need a PoF for time-dependent failure mechanisms? The TTF is more relevant since it drives integrity re-assessment schedules and other risk mgmt. efforts.
TTF is indeed the more useful metric for many applications. However, the TTF has a probabilistic aspect that must be understood before its use in, for example, setting an integrity reassessment interval. The TTF calculation uses segment lengths since degradation mechanisms are usually related to surface areas. A probabilistic TTF per mile is an intermediate calculation […]
How do I include ‘tank overfilling’ in a risk assessment?
You first choose to include such events in your definition of ‘failure’. Then, the event is assessed like any integrity-threatening event, in terms of exposure, mitigation, and resistance. Perhaps this event can be included as an Incorrect Operations scenario, along with analogous events such as overpressure.
How should I be doing risk assessments in facilities like tank farms, compressor stations, etc?
Exactly the same way as for components on the ROW. You don’t want or need multiple risk assessment approaches. A good risk assessment methodology works equally efficiently on any component or any collection of components. The challenge with facilities will be in segmentation. The more robust assessments will examine very small sub-components (eg, the casing of the pump […]
How do I include flange and screw-connection leaks that are really just ‘wiggling loose’ over time?
This scenario must first be categorized in terms of its underlying failure mechanism. An underlying question to answer when categorizing a failure mechanism as either time independent or time dependent is ‘if there have been no changes in any forces, then why did it fail today instead of yesterday?’. When a fitting or appurtenance has performed […]
Does the CoF hazard zone approach make sense for water pipeline risk assessments?
Absolutely. Even though, unlike its hydrocarbon cousins, no thermal scenarios would be expected from water pipe failures, other consequences are numerous and many are related to the distance from the failure location (hazard zones). Modeling is therefore appropriately done using hazard zones, with both direct and indirect consequence considerations, just as we do for hydrocarbon pipelines.