Interpretation of the Safety Risk Tolerance Criteria for Integrated Asset Management of Pipelines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Safety risk tolerance criteria are commonly established using the risk measures for individual risk and societal risk. Several studies on the review of international standards for safety risk acceptance criteria have identified that in most international standards, the societal risk criterion is expressed in terms an F-N curve where N is the expected number of fatalities due to hazardous conditions posed by an infrastructure element and F is the estimated frequency of N or more fatalities. The Netherlands and the UK have pioneered establishing the risk tolerance criteria for both individual and societal risk. The development of the safety risk tolerance criteria was primarily in the context of regulatory decision-making for the permitting process of the facilities, which was later expanded to include hazardous materials transport and pipelines. For the existing facilities and pipelines, the risk tolerance criteria are used extensively for land-use planning and development. Recently, Canadian standard, CSA Z662:2023 “Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems” has included quantitative risk criteria for pipelines in the informative (non-mandatory) Annex B portion that is applicable for the risk management of all aspects of the pipeline life cycle. Following the established international norms, the individual and societal risk criteria were published such that the societal risk criterion for the F-N curve to be applied over one kilometer of the pipeline. In contrast to the international standards such as IGEM/TD/2 “Assessing the risks from high pressure Natural Gas pipelines” (2015), there is little guidance to differentiate between use of the quantitative safety tolerance criteria for the purpose of permitting of new pipelines and land-use planning with the purpose of pipeline integrity management. This paper presents the differences in the use of available quantitative safety risk tolerance criteria for land-use planning and the pipeline risk management during the pipeline life cycle. The applicability of the risk tolerance as intended during the development of criteria, is critically reviewed when used in the context of risk management for the integrated asset management of the pipeline considering the life cycle performance. Additional considerations for interpreting the safety risk tolerance criteria during decision-making regarding risk mitigation actions are proposed. Furthermore, linear metrics used in risk measures established for other linear infrastructure, such as roads, and railways are compared with pipelines, and the differences between risk measures to establish tolerance criteria for point-source hazard infrastructure, such as chemical facilities, with the linear infrastructure, such as pipelines are highlighted.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,053 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».