Bow tie to improve risk management of natural gas pipelines

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcio Vinicios Pereira Muniz ◽  
Gilson Brito Alves Lima ◽  
Rodrigo Goyannes Gusmão Caiado ◽  
Osvaldo Luiz Gonçalves Quelhas
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Gas Pipelines ◽  
Natural Gas Pipelines ◽  
Bow Tie

Risk Management at TransCanada Pipelines

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Cicansky ◽  
Glenn Yuen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
High Pressure ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Gas Pipelines ◽  
Natural Gas Pipelines

This Paper presents the method TransCanada PipeLines uses to assess the integrity risks with respect to operating its high pressure natural gas pipelines. TransCanada PipeLines’ experiences, results and successes gained through the implementation of its risk program, TRPRAM (TransCanada Pipelines Risk Assessment Model) are highlighted.

scholarly journals Risk Analysis on Leakage Failure of Natural Gas Pipelines by Fuzzy Bayesian Network with a Bow-Tie Model

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xian Shan ◽  
Kang Liu ◽  
Pei-Liang Sun
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Gas Pipeline ◽  
Weak Links ◽  
Gas Pipelines ◽  
Natural Gas Pipelines ◽  
Natural Gas Pipeline ◽  
Major Mode ◽  
Bow Tie

Pipeline is the major mode of natural gas transportation. Leakage of natural gas pipelines may cause explosions and fires, resulting in casualties, environmental damage, and material loss. Efficient risk analysis is of great significance for preventing and mitigating such potential accidents. The objective of this study is to present a practical risk assessment method based on Bow-tie model and Bayesian network for risk analysis of natural gas pipeline leakage. Firstly, identify the potential risk factors and consequences of the failure. Then construct the Bow-tie model, use the quantitative analysis of Bayesian network to find the weak links in the system, and make a prediction of the control measures to reduce the rate of the accident. In order to deal with the uncertainty existing in the determination of the probability of basic events, fuzzy logic method is used. Results of a case study show that the most likely causes of natural gas pipeline leakage occurrence are parties ignore signage, implicit signage, overload, and design defect of auxiliaries. Once the leakage occurs, it is most likely to result in fire and explosion. Corresponding measures taken on time will reduce the disaster degree of accidents to the least extent.

Validation of EMAT ILI for Management of Stress Corrosion Cracking in Natural Gas Pipelines

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Fore ◽  
Stefan Klein ◽  
Chris Yoxall ◽  
Stan Cone
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Natural Gas ◽  
Stress Corrosion ◽  
Stress Corrosion Cracking ◽  
Corrosion Cracking ◽  
Probability Of Detection ◽  
Gas Pipelines ◽  
Line Pipe ◽  
Natural Gas Pipelines ◽  
Electro Magnetic

Managing the threat of Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) in natural gas pipelines continues to be an area of focus for many operating companies with potentially susceptible pipelines. This paper describes the validation process of the high-resolution Electro-Magnetic Acoustical Transducer (EMAT) In-Line Inspection (ILI) technology for detection of SCC prior to scheduled pressure tests of inspected line pipe valve sections. The validation of the EMAT technology covered the application of high-resolution EMAT ILI and determining the Probability Of Detection (POD) and Identification (POI). The ILI verification process is in accordance to a API 1163 Level 3 validation. It is described in detail for 30″ and 36″ pipeline segments. Both segments are known to have an SCC history. Correlation of EMAT ILI calls to manual non-destructive measurements and destructively tested SCC samples lead to a comprehensive understanding of the capabilities of the EMAT technology and the associated process for managing the SCC threat. Based on the data gathered, the dimensional tool tolerances in terms of length and depth are derived.

Comparison of PIR to PIPESAFE-Based 1% Lethality Zones for Natural Gas Pipelines

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Tomic ◽  
Shahani Kariyawasam
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Small Diameter ◽  
Gas Pipeline ◽  
Accurate Estimation ◽  
Simple Relationship ◽  
Gas Pipelines ◽  
Friction Forces ◽  
Natural Gas Pipelines ◽  
Decay Factor ◽  
Outflow Rate

A lethality zone due to an ignited natural gas release is often used to characterize the consequences of a pipeline rupture. A 1% lethality zone defines a zone where the lethality to a human is greater than or equal to 1%. The boundary of the zone is defined by the distance (from the point of rupture) at which the probability of lethality is 1%. Currently in the gas pipeline industry, the most detailed and validated method for calculating this zone is embodied in the PIPESAFE software. PIPESAFE is a software tool developed by a joint industry group for undertaking quantitative risk assessments of natural gas pipelines. PIPESAFE consequence models have been verified in laboratory experiments, full scale tests, and actual failures, and have been extensively used over the past 10–15 years for quantitative risk calculations. The primary advantage of using PIPESAFE is it allows for accurate estimation of the likelihood of lethality inside the impacted zone (i.e. receptors such as structures closer to the failure are subject to appropriately higher lethality percentages). Potential Impact Radius (PIR) is defined as the zone in which the extent of property damage and serious or fatal injury would be expected to be significant. It corresponds to the 1% lethality zone for a natural gas pipeline of a certain diameter and pressure when thermal radiation and exposure are taken into account. PIR is one of the two methods used to identify HCAs in US (49 CFR 192.903). Since PIR is a widely used parameter and given that it can be interpreted to delineate a 1% lethality zone, it is important to understand how PIR compares to the more accurate estimation of the lethality zones for different diameters and operating pressures. In previous internal studies, it was found that PIR, when compared to the more detailed measures of the 1% lethality zone, could be highly conservative. This conservatism could be beneficial from a safety perspective, however it is adding additional costs and reducing the efficiency of the integrity management process. Therefore, the goal of this study is to determine when PIR is overly conservative and to determine a way to address this conservatism. In order to assess its accuracy, PIR was compared to a more accurate measure of the 1% lethality zone, calculated by PIPESAFE, for a range of different operating pressures and line diameters. Upon comparison of the distances calculated through the application of PIR and PIPESAFE, it was observed that for large diameters pipelines the distances calculated by PIR are slightly conservative, and that this conservativeness increases exponentially for smaller diameter lines. The explanation for the conservatism of the PIR for small diameter pipelines is the higher wall friction forces per volume transported in smaller diameter lines. When these higher friction forces are not accounted for it leads to overestimation of the effective outflow rate (a product of the initial flow rate and the decay factor) which subsequently leads to the overestimation of the impact radius. Since the effective outflow rate is a function of both line pressure and diameter, a simple relationship is proposed to make the decay factor a function of these two variables to correct the excess conservatism for small diameter pipelines.

Identification and Mitigation of a Landslide Threatening Four Operating Natural Gas Pipelines

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Ahmadipur ◽  
Alexander McKenzie-Johnson ◽  
Ali Ebrahimi ◽  
Anthony H. Rice
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Landslide Hazard ◽  
Management Process ◽  
Gas Pipelines ◽  
Hazard Management ◽  
Natural Gas Pipelines ◽  
South Central ◽  
Subsurface Investigation ◽  
Landslide Stabilization

Abstract This paper presents a case study of a landslide with the potential to affect four operating high-pressure natural gas pipelines located in the south-central US state of Mississippi. This case study follows a landslide hazard management process: beginning with landslide identification, through pipeline monitoring using strain gauges with an automated early alert system, to detection of landslide movement and its effects on the pipeline, completion of a geotechnical subsurface investigation, conceptual geotechnical mitigation planning, landslide stabilization design and construction, and stress relief excavation. Each step of the landslide hazard management process is described in this case study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document