session1b overheads

8/9/2019 Session1B Overheads

1/53

The PIRAMID Technology

Overview


2/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

Background to the PIRAMID Project

● A multi-year Joint Industry Program

●

Sponsored by● BC Gas

● ConocoPhillips

● Enbridge

●

Foothills Pipe Lines● Kinder Morgan

● PEMEX Exploration and Production

● Saudi Arabian Oil Company

●

Sempra Energy Utilities● Tubular Goods Research Center of CNPC

● Canadian Geological Survey

● U.S. Minerals Management Service


3/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

Project Goal

Develop Models and Software

● Make optimal maintenance decisions● Ensure acceptable risk levels

● At the lowest possible cost

● Explain rationale behind decisions● Internally within company

● Externally to regulators and the public


4/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

Development Focus

● Quantitative model-based approach● probability estimation

● consequence estimation

● Account for the impact of preventative maintenance● in-line inspection | hydrostatic pressure testing

● damage prevention measures

● Comprehensive treatment of risk● life safety impact

● environmental impact

● economic impact

● Formal decision analysis approach● weigh benefits (risk reduction) against costs (preventative maintenance)


5/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

PIRAMID Function

Divide system into segments

Rank line segmentsaccording to risk level

RiskRanking

Determine optimal strategyfor targeted segment

Implement optimal actionsin order of refined ranking

Repeat for eachtargeted segment

Maintenance

Optimization


6/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

Risk Ranking

For each Segment in System

EstimateTotal Operating Risk

R e

p e a t f o r A l l H

a z a r d s

Estimate

Probability of Failure

EstimateConsequences of Failure

Identify Hazards


7/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

Ranking Results - Identify High Risk Segments


8/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

Maintenance Optimization

For each Targeted Segment

Identify IntegrityMaintenance Options

Estimate Effect of Maintenance Strategy

on the Probability of Failure

Re-calculate Risk

Select Optimal IntegrityMaintenance Strategy

R e

p e a t f o r A l l O p t i o n s

DecisionAnalysis


9/53

advantage

technologycreates

C-FERTechnologies

Analysis Results - Identify Preferred Option


10/53

advantage

technologycreatesC-FERTechnologies

PIRAMID Technology Summary

● Comprehensive framework for maintenance planning

● Quantitative and objective approach● Historical incident data

● Analytical models

● pipeline failure prediction

● release hazard characterization● Pipeline condition data

● Benefits●

Generates line-specific risk estimates● Quantifies the impact of maintenance actions

● Identifies minimum cost solutions


11/53

The PIRAMID Technology

Model Components


12/53

advantage


PIRAMID Model Components

SegmentAnalysis

SiteAnalysis

DecisionAnalysis

Pipeline Definition and SegmentationScenarioDefinition

Risk Estimation

ProbabilityEstimation

ConsequenceEstimation

StructuralReliability Models

Historical FailureRate Models


13/53

advantage



SegmentAnalysis

SiteAnalysis

DecisionAnalysis




Risk Estimation




14/53

advantage


Probability Estimation

● Quantify the annual chance of line failure

for each significant failure cause● Corrosion mechanisms

● Cracking mechanisms

● Outside forces

● Failure modes considered● Small leak

pinhole

● Large leak

significant hole

● Rupture full-bore release


15/53

advantage


Available Methods

Historicalfailure rates

Adjustmentfactors

Failureprobabilities

Conditiondata

Structuralmodels

Failureprobabilities

Historical-based Method

Reliability-based Method


16/53

advantage


Historical-based Method

● Approach● Use historical failure rates and failure mode splits

● Adjust to reflect line attributes and effect of maintenance

● Adjustments based on statistical data, simple models, judgment

● Strengths●

Simple and fast

● Limitations● Variable accuracy (more to work with for some failure causes)

●

Involves subjective judgment● Recommended use

● Segment ranking and prioritization


17/53

advantage


Historical-based Models

Failure causes addressed by HB models

●

Time-dependent failure● External metal loss corrosion

● Internal metal loss corrosion

● Stress corrosion cracking

●

Manufacturing cracks● seam weld fatigue - onshore

● girth weld fatigue – offshore

● Geotechnical hazard (e.g., slope movement)

● Time-independent failure

● Equipment impact● excavators - onshore

● net gear/anchors/vessel hulls - offshore

● Geotechnical hazard (e.g., river scour)

● Seismic hazard (liquefaction, fault movement)

● Other causes


18/53

advantage


Reliability-based Method

● Approach● Use line and ROW condition data

● Calculate failure probability using structural behaviour models

● Strengths● Gives line-specific probability estimates

● Can accurately account for the impact of maintenance● Based on more readily available data

● Limitations●

Detailed analysis required● Recommended use

● Analyzing maintenance options


19/53

advantage


Reliability-based Models

Failure causes addressed by RB models

●

Time-dependent failure● External metal loss corrosion

● Internal metal loss corrosion

● Stress corrosion cracking

● Manufacturing cracks (axial defects)

● Dent-gouges (mechanical damage)

● Wrinkling or rupture due to ground movement

● Time-independent failure● Equipment impact


20/53

advantage



SegmentAnalysis

SiteAnalysis

DecisionAnalysis




Risk Estimation




21/53

advantage


Consequence Estimation

● Quantify the impact of failure should it occur

● A model-based approach with distinct models for ● Onshore pipelines

● Offshore pipelines

● Consequence measures● Financial impact

Dollars

● Public safety impact

Number of people at risk

● Environmental impact Effective residual spill volume


22/53

advantage


Consequence Estimation Model

Failure

HazardModels

Damage

Thresholds

Human Impact

Thresholds

Effective

Residual SpillVolume

Number of

People at Risk

Spill Clean-upModel

Line Repair Cost

Lost ProductCost

Service InterruptCost

Spill ImpactFactor

Property

DamageCost

Onshore Pipeline Systems

FinancialCost


23/53

advantage


Consequence Estimation Model

Failure

HazardModels

Damage

Thresholds

Human Impact

Thresholds

Effective

Shoreline ImpactVolume

Number of

People at Risk

Spill Decay &Clean-up Models

Line Repair Cost

Lost ProductCost

Service InterruptCost

ShorelineImpact Model

OffshoreDamage

Cost

Offshore Pipeline Systems

FinancialCost


24/53

advantage



SegmentAnalysis

SiteAnalysis

DecisionAnalysis

Pipeline Definition and Segmentation

Risk Estimation

ScenarioDefinition






25/53

advantage


Risk Estimation

Recall

Risk = Probability x Consequences

Where consequences have three components:

Financial Cost ($) C

Life Safety Number of fatalities N

Environmental Spill volume (m3) V


26/53

advantage


Risk Measures

● Financial

● Life safety

● Environmental

Expected Cost C* = pf x C ($/year or $/km yr)

Expected Number of Fatalities N* = pf x N (fatalities/year or fatalities/km yr)

Expected Residual Spill volume V* = pf x V (m3 /year or m3 /km yr)


27/53

advantage


Combined Risk Measures - Option 1

The equivalent dollar approacho

R = pf x (C + N + V)where

R = Risk ($/year or $/km yr)

pf = Probability of failureC = Failure cost

N = Number of fatalities

V = Spill volume

= Constant converting fatalities to equivalent dollars

= Constant converting residual spill volume to equivalent dollars


28/53

advantage


Combined Risk Measures - Option 2

The combined impact approacho

R = pf x ( α C + N + V)where

R = Risk (severity points/yr or severity points/km yr)

pf = Probability of failureC = Failure cost

N = Number of fatalities

V = Spill volume

α

= Constant converting dollars into severity points

= Constant converting fatalities into severity points

= Constant converting residual spill volume into severity points


29/53

advantage


Life Safety Risk Estimation

A complimentary approach - Individual Risk

●

The annual probability of a person living or working ata particular location near the pipeline becoming a fatalitydue to a pipeline incident

● Example

An individual risk of 1 x 10-5

means a 1 in 100,000 chance offatality per year


30/53

advantage


Individual Risk

1.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

-1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600

Distance from Pipeline (m)

A n n u a l F a t a l i t y R i s k

Distance from Pipeline

OffsetIndividual

risk atoffset


31/53

advantage


Individual Risk Ratio

1.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

-1600 -1200 -800 -400 0 400 800 1200 1600

Distance from Pipeline (m)

A n n u a l F a t a l i t y R i s k

Distance from Pipeline

Minimum offsetto development

IRT - Maximum tolerable risk level*

IR - risk atminimum

offset

* Tolerable risk level depends on land use

IRR = IR / IRT


32/53

S i D fi iti


33/53

advantage


Scenario Definition

● A scenario is a ‘modified’ copy of base-case System

● Modifications can include● preventative maintenance actions

● changes in operating procedures

● pipe replacement

● Analysis of a scenario quantifies the effect ofperforming proposed actions

● Comparing scenarios is the basis for decision-making

PIRAMID M d l C t


34/53

advantage



SegmentAnalysis

SiteAnalysis

DecisionAnalysis


Risk

EvaluationScenarioDefinition

Risk Estimation





Sit A l i


35/53

advantage


Site Analysis

● Individual risk●

Individual risk estimates and contours at a specific location● Attribute sensitivity

● Effect of attribute variations on risk measures at a location

●

Risk trends● Risk vs. time at a specific location

● Probability of failure

● Expected cost

●

Expected fatalities● Expected volume

● Combined impact

● Individual risk ratio

S t A l i


36/53

advantage


Segment Analysis

● Segment risk estimation* and ranking●

Available measures● Expected combined impact (equivalent dollars or severity points)

● Probability of failure

● Expected cost

●

Expected volume● Expected fatalities

● Individual risk ratio

● Results available for ● Individual failure causes or ‘all causes combined’

*Note segment risk is the sum of the risks from each component section

D i i A l i


37/53

advantage


Decision Analysis

● A framework for comparing maintenance options

● Formalized decision analysis approach● Weighs benefits of maintenance against costs of implementation

● Preferred option yields tolerable level of risk at lowest cost

● Available analysis methods● Risk Optimization

● Cost optimization

● Combined impact optimization

● Utility optimization

● Benefit-cost ratios

Decision Analysis


38/53

advantage


Decision Analysis

Risk Optimization Methods●

Cost optimization● minimize total “real dollar” impact of operation

● option to treat safety and/or environmental risks as constraints

● Combined Impact optimization*

●

minimize combined impact severity of operation● consider financial, safety and environmental impacts together

● Utility optimization*

● maximize “value” associated with all possible outcomes

●

consider financial, safety and environmental impacts together ● reflects risk attitudes and variable trade-off

*can also treat safety and/or environmental risks as constraints


39/53


40/53



41/53

advantage



System● set of pipelines to be considered

● represents the base-case or ‘do-nothing’ scenario

Pipeline● basis for pipeline system definition

● lengths of line along which stationing is continuous

● all necessary line attributes defined over entire length

Segment● basic unit for risk ranking and maintenance planning

● can be repeatedly modified by user (Dynamic Segmentation)

Section● basic unit of risk analysis

● established by program based on line attributes

● new section generated every time an attribute changes

Pipeline vs Segment vs Section


42/53

advantage


Pipeline vs. Segment vs. Section

Section - consistent attribute set

Dynamic Segmentation

fixed sections

original segmentation

revised segmentation

Segmented by user

Sectioned automatically by line attributesPipeline

KP / MPStart

KP / MPEnd

Segment - basis for system rankingand maintenance planning

Line Attributes


43/53

advantage


Line Attributes

● Attribute types●

Range attributes constant along a distance of line● Coordinate attributes measured at discrete points along line

● Numeric input enter a real (floating point) number

● Choice input select from a choice list

● Date input YYYY/MM/DD

● Methods of data entry● direct entry through program interface (attribute spreadsheet)

●

cut and paste to/from attribute spreadsheet● import from a formatted text file (PIRAMID model data file .mdl)

● import data from an external data source

The Software


44/53

advantagetechnology

createsC-FERTechnologies

The Software

User Interface


45/53

advantagetechnology


Menu Bar

Display Area

Tree DiagramWorkspace

Status Bar

Message Area

Tool Bar

User Interface

Demo Guidance Notes


46/53

advantagetechnology


Demo Guidance Notes

Menu Bar command reference→ Settings / Consequences

Demo 1


47/53

advantagetechnologycreatesC-FERTechnologies

Demo 1

● Metric (SI) example

Liquid pipeline -X:\Program Files\C-FER\PIRAMID\2002 Training Seminar\Level1\Demo 1\SI

● Imperial (US) example

Liquid pipeline -X:\Program Files\C-FER\PIRAMID\2002 Training Seminar\Level1\Demo 1\IMP

Demo 1 (metric) – Segment Analysis Results

for All Segments in System


48/53


for All Segments in System

Demo 1 (metric) – Segment Analysis Results

for All Maintenance Scenarios on North Lateral


49/53



Demo 1 (metric) – Site Analysis Results for

All Maintenance Scenarios on North Lateral


50/53



Demo 1 (metric) – Decision Analysis Results



51/53



Demo 1 (metric) – Decision Analysis Results for



52/53




53/53

session1b overheads

Documents