MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2062030024 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0588

Guidelines to Develop Fitness-for-Service Assessments in Oil Pipelines Exposed to Corrosive and Geotechnical Environments

2004· article· en· W2062030024 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafael G. Mora, Carlos Vergara, Guy Krepps

Notice bibliographique

Revue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntegrity managementPipeline transportPipeline (software)EngineeringService (business)HazardPetroleum industryProduct (mathematics)Structural integrityPetroleum engineeringForensic engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineeringBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Industry standards (i.e. API 1160, ASME B31.4 and B31.8S-2001, CSA-Z662-2003) and regulations (i.e. US DOT 49 Parts 195-2002 and 192-2003, and NEB On-shore 99) have delineated the risk-based elements of oil and gas pipeline integrity management programs. A Fitness-For-Service Assessment is part of an overall Integrity Management Program that is implemented for the pipeline system depending on the required pipeline operational conditions, severity of integrity threats, and their impact or consequences to the public, environment and employees. This paper provides guidelines for pipeline operators of oil pipeline systems exposed to corrosive and geotechnical sensitive environments and high consequence areas to develop long term integrity plans. In this case, the pipeline integrity plans were prepared based on the integration of data and assessments such as metal loss, geometry and strain in-line inspections, product corrositivity, cathodic protection, geotechnical hazard identification, and pipe class location/high consequence areas. Guidelines for developing near-term integrity plans are herein provided based on best industry practices and regulations. In 2002, Oleoducto Central S.A. (Ocensa) and CC Technologies initiated the Phase 1 of the Fitness-for-Service assessment of 698 km of NPS 16/30 crude oil pipeline from Cupiagua to Coven˜as. Phase 1 was comprised of an internal corrosion study to assess the corrosivity of the product and its impact in the future. Corrosivity of the crude oil was determined from laboratory testing and correlated to the pipeline operational and topographical conditions. In 2003, the Phase 2 of the Fitness-for-Service assessment was comprised of a review of the near-term maintenance program and the development of the long-term maintenance program. The long-term integrity plan program for corrosion features was developed using a deterministic and probabilistic corrosion growth modeling to determine excavation/repair and re-inspection interval alternatives. The corrosion growth modeling took into account the in-line inspection tool accuracy based on the field validation program. The most cost effective alternative was identified by using a cost benefit analysis technique. This implemented approach contributed to timely schedule maintenance activities. In addition, the selected excavations confirmed with high confidence the results from the Ocensa-CC Technologies Canada predictability model. Geometry features reported by the geometry/inertial in-line inspection were initially evaluated, and correlated to the corrosion in-line inspection data, and the geotechnical hazard study to identify potential locations of slope instability, river-crossing scouring for assessing internal corrosion criticality. Strain areas were also assessed and correlated to pipe wall deformation and potential areas of land movement. Pipe class location limits were determined based on latest dwelling locations and distribution, and then correlated to the reported corrosion features for verifying minimum safety factors. The long-term maintenance program was integrated from all assessments performed on the identified integrity threats. As a result, guidelines were prepared for implementing technically sound and economically-optimized long-term inline inspection, excavation and repair plans.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,288
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,301
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Même sujetStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisTravaux en français237 207