A Prudent Approach to Evaluate Dig Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Schartner ◽  
Aaron Woo ◽  
Dushyant Puri ◽  
Shahani Kariyawasam
Keyword(s):  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Program Effectiveness ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Direct Examination ◽  
Probabilistic Evaluation ◽  
Safety And Reliability ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
External Corrosion ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pipeline operators analyze in-line inspection (ILI) reported features to determine if excavation is required to investigate a feature through direct examination in the ditch. Pipeline excavations require considerable resources and planning. In addition, excavations may cause disturbance to the land owner or cause varying impacts to the operation of the pipeline. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the excavation decisions are made effectively. While operators do review the key performance indicators on how the integrity programs are performing, currently there is no established definition or measure in the pipeline industry to evaluate the effectiveness of a dig program. Defining and measuring dig effectiveness would allow pipeline operators to identify areas to focus on, such as further research and development, opportunities for improvement, and potential optimization of the ILI-based corrosion management program, while maintaining safety and reliability. This paper presents a method developed by TC Energy to measure dig effectiveness to evaluate the ILI-based corrosion management program. Effectiveness of digs depends on many aspects of the corrosion management program. First, a definition of dig effectiveness that reflects the objectives of the ILI program needs to be established. The method was developed using inhouse historical dig data for external corrosion features that required mitigation based on analysis of ILI data. The focus of the study included the probabilistic evaluation of excavations to baseline what can be expected in a dig program and have a process to evaluate factors that may affect dig effectiveness. The field measurements of digs completed for corrosion driven leak and rupture threats were gathered and analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of different dig populations and to determine what bounds should be placed to monitor dig effectiveness. The advantages of measuring dig effectiveness using field results as opposed to other metrics such as repair ratio was also demonstrated in this paper. Examples of understanding areas of improvement by using the dig effectiveness are discussed. Pipeline operators have the potential to incorporate the methodology presented in this paper in the integrity management program to enhance safety and identify areas of focus with the goal of increasing the effectiveness of the corrosion management program.

Advanced Integrity Management Framework for Pipelines

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Len LeBlanc ◽  
Walter Kresic ◽  
Sean Keane ◽  
John Munro
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Improvement ◽  
Program Effectiveness ◽  
Level Structure ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Management Framework ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Safety Case ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
High Level

This paper describes the integrity management framework utilized within the Enbridge Liquids Pipelines Integrity Management Program. The role of the framework is to provide the high-level structure used by the company to prepare and demonstrate integrity safety decisions relative to mainline pipelines, and facility piping segments where applicable. The scope is directed to corrosion, cracking, and deformation threats and all variants within those broad categories. The basis for the framework centers on the use of a safety case to provide evidence that the risks affecting the system have been effectively mitigated. A ‘safety case’, for the purposes of this methodology is defined as a structured argument demonstrating that the evidence is sufficient to show that the system is safe.[1] The decision model brings together the aspects of data integration and determination of maintenance timing; execution of prevention, monitoring, and mitigation; confirmation that the execution has met reliability targets; application of additional steps if targets are not met; and then the collation of the results into an engineering assessment of the program effectiveness (safety case). Once the program is complete, continuous improvement is built into the next program through the incorporation of research and development solutions, lessons learned, and improvements to processes. On the basis of a wide range of experiences, investigations and research, it was concluded that there are combinations of monitoring and mitigation methods required in an integrity program to effectively manage integrity threats. A safety case approach ultimately provides the structure for measuring the effectiveness of integrity monitoring and mitigation efforts, and the methodology to assess whether a pipeline is sufficiently safe with targets for continuous improvement. Hence, the need for the safety case is to provide transparent, quantitative integrity program performance results which are continually improved upon through ongoing revalidations and improvement to the methods utilized. This enables risk reduction, better stakeholder awareness, focused innovation, opportunities for industry information sharing along with other benefits.

Pre-Assessment is Key to Success for Direct Assessment in Integrity Management Programs

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Valdes ◽  
Richard McNealy
Keyword(s):  
Assessment Method ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Gas Pipeline ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Practical Consideration ◽  
Direct Examination ◽  
Effective Utilization ◽  
Direct Assessment ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Pipeline Safety

Direct Assessment is allowed under the new Gas Pipeline Integrity Management Rules published by the Office of Pipeline Safety as an assessment method subject to specific applicability restrictions, direct examination criteria and restrictions to re-inspection intervals. The final developed costs for implementing direct assessment is largely dependent upon the extent of direct examination that in turn is a function of the pipeline condition and actual threats discovered and validated. Effective utilization of Direct Assessment within an Integrity Management Program is dependent upon the recognition of the value inherent in the Pre-Assessment Stage of the Direct Assessment Process as defined by the Rule, in which, threats are predicted, applicability confirmed and as a result of data and risk analysis, it is possible to estimate the condition of the pipeline to determine if the use of Direct Assessment is a practical consideration as well as permitted under the Gas Pipeline Integrity Management Rule.

Optimizing the Management of Excavation and Repair Data From Inline Inspection Programs

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miaad Safari ◽  
David Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Condition Monitoring ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Data Uncertainty ◽  
Pipeline System ◽  
System Integrity ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
External Corrosion ◽  
Inspection Data ◽  
Superior Approach

Abstract As integrity programs mature over the life of a pipeline, an increasing number of data points are collected from second, third, or further condition monitoring cycles. Types of data include Inline Inspection (ILI) or External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) inspection data, validation or remediation dig information, and records of various repairs that have been completed on the pipeline system. The diversity and massive quantity of this gathered data proposes a challenge to pipeline operators in managing and maintaining these data sets and records. The management of integrity data is a key element to a pipeline system Integrity Management Program (IMP) as per the CSA Z662[1]. One of the most critical integrity datasets is the repair information. Incorrect repair assignments on a pipeline can lead to duplicate unnecessary excavations in the best scenario and a pipeline failure in the worst scenario. Operators rely on various approaches to manage and assign repair data to ILIs such as historical records reviews, ILI-based repair assignments, or chainage-based repair assignments. However, these methods have significant gaps in efficiency and/or accuracy. Failure to adequately manage excavation and repair data can lead to increased costs due to repeated excavation of an anomaly, an increase in resources required to match historical information with new data, uncertainty in the effectiveness of previous repairs, and the possibility of incorrect assignment of repairs to unrepaired features. This paper describes the approach adopted by Enbridge Gas to track and maintain repairs, as a part of the Pipeline Risk and Integrity Management (PRIM) platform. This approach was designed to create a robust excavation and repair management framework, providing a robust system of data gathering and automation, while ensuring sufficient oversight by Integrity Engineers. Using this system, repairs are assigned to each feature in an excavation, not only to a certain chainage along the pipeline. Subsequently, when a new ILI results report is received, a process of “Repair Matching” is completed to assign preexisting repairs and assessments to the newly reported features at a feature level. This process is partially automated, whereby pre-determined box-to-box features matched between ILIs can auto-populate repairs for many of the repaired features. The proposed excavation management system would provide operators a superior approach to managing their repair history and projecting historical repairs and assessments onto new ILI reports, prior to assessing the ILI and issuing further digs on the pipeline. This optimized method has many advantages over the conventional repair management methods used in the industry. This method is best suited for operators that are embarking on their second or third condition monitoring cycle, with a moderate number of historical repairs.

Assessment of In-Line Inspection Performance and Interpretation of Field Measurements for Characterization of Complex Dents

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis A. Torres ◽  
Matthew J. Fowler ◽  
Jordan G. Stenerson
Keyword(s):  
Management Strategies ◽  
Mechanical Damage ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Tool Performance ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Technical Specifications ◽  
Shape Complexity

Integrity management of dents on pipelines is currently performed through the interpretation of In-Line Inspection (ILI) data; this includes Caliper, Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL), and Ultrasonic Testing (UT) tools. Based on the available ILI data, dent features that are recognized as threats from a mechanical damage perspective are excavated and remediated. Federal codes and regulations provide rules and allow inference on what types of dent features may be a result of mechanical damage; nonetheless, there are challenges associated with identifying dents resulting from mechanical damage. One of the difficulties when managing the mechanical damage threat is the lack of information on how MFL and UT ILI tool performance is affected by dented areas in the pipe. ILI vendors do not offer any technical specifications for characterizing and sizing metal loss features in dents. It is generally expected that metal loss tool performance will be affected in dented areas of the pipe, but it is not known to what degree. It is likely that degradation will vary based on feature shape, sensor design, and sensor placement. Because metal loss tool performance is unknown within the limits of the dented pipe, other methods for recognizing mechanical damage have been incorporated into the management strategies of mechanical damage. Some of these methods include strain based assessments and characterization of shape complexity. In order to build a more effective integrity management program for mechanical damage, it is of critical importance to understand how tool technology performance is affected by dented areas in the pipe and what steps can be taken to use ILI information more effectively. In this paper, the effectiveness of MFL and UT wall measurement tools in characterizing and sizing metal loss features within dents is studied by evaluating against field results from non-destructive examinations of mechanical damage indications. In addition, the effectiveness of using shape complexity indicators to identify mechanical damage is evaluated, introducing concepts such as dents in close proximity and multi-apex dents. Finally, the effectiveness of ILI tools in predicting dent association with girth welds is also explored by comparing ILI and field results.

Enhanced Pipeline Integrity at Lower Cost: A Pipeline Integrity Prioritization Model

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron S. Burdylo ◽  
Audrey L. L. Van Aelst
Keyword(s):  
Program Effectiveness ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Mitigation Strategy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Useful Life ◽  
Mitigation Techniques

Strategic, focussed application of pipeline integrity monitoring and mitigation techniques will significantly improve pipeline integrity program effectiveness while reducing overall maintenance costs. These achievements have been demonstrated through the development of Maintenance Prioritization Models (MPM) that pinpoint areas along the pipeline with the highest susceptibility to failure and identify the most cost effective mitigation strategy. A MPM identifies areas along the pipeline that exhibit a higher relative susceptibility to failure and consequence in the event of a pipeline rupture. Used as part of the owner’s pipeline integrity management program, it assists with optimization, planning and focusing of integrity related preventative maintenance activities. Areas that require short-term mitigation are identified and maintenance budgeting and planning can be prioritized while long-term planning needs are forecast. It enables integrity engineers to manage resources more efficiently by focusing on areas of highest need, thereby extending the useful life of the pipeline section that will, in turn, extend its revenue generation capabilities.

Assessment of the Culture of Care working with laboratory animals by using a comprehensive survey tool

2021 ◽  
pp. 002367722110144
Author(s):  
Thomas Bertelsen ◽  
Kirstine Øvlisen
Keyword(s):  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Laboratory Animals ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Culture Of Care ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Eu

The term Culture of Care, within the scientific community using laboratory animals, is being used more and more frequently after it was introduced in the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, where it is phrased as a ‘climate of care’, which became effective in national legislation from January 2013. However, there is a risk that the term could become a meaningless phrase if no agreed local definition of the term exists at the animal facility (called establishment in the EU Directive). This paper presents a comprehensive survey tool that provides a means to describe what the Culture of Care in an establishment looks like. The tool is one of the elements that can contribute to the overall picture of the culture; however, it cannot stand alone. Together with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Culture of Care (e.g. key performance indicators) and a description of the outcomes and achievements in terms of animal welfare and the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine), the survey tool will constitute a comprehensive picture. The survey tool offers a multilevel and comprehensive view of different subcultures, presenting details on mindset and behaviour of the employees and the different relations within the culture, thus enabling the initiation of improvement projects if required. The tool addresses essential elements of a co-operative culture in terms of what we think, what we do and how we work together.

Systematic Literature Review on Smart Mobility: A Framework for Future “Quantitative” Developments

2021 ◽  
pp. 088541222199424
Author(s):  
Mauro Francini ◽  
Lucia Chieffallo ◽  
Annunziata Palermo ◽  
Maria Francesca Viapiana
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Measurement Model ◽  
Broader Impacts ◽  
Research Goal ◽  
Smart Mobility ◽  
Definition Of

This work aims to reorganize theoretical and empirical research on smart mobility through the systematic literature review approach. The research goal is to reach an extended and shared definition of smart mobility using the cluster analysis. The article provides a summary of the state of the art that can have broader impacts in determining new angles for approaching research. In particular, the results will be a reference for future quantitative developments for the authors who are working on the construction of a territorial measurement model of the smartness degree, helping them in identifying performance indicators consistent with the definition proposed.

The Role of Offshore Monitoring in an Effective Deepwater Riser Integrity Management Program

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany Goldsmith ◽  
Elizabeth Foyt ◽  
Madhu Hariharan
Keyword(s):  
Failure Modes ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Measured Data ◽  
Operating Conditions ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Positioning Systems ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Deepwater Riser

As offshore field developments move into deeper water, one of the greatest challenges is in designing riser systems capable of overcoming the added risks of more severe environments, complicated well requirements and uncertainty of operating conditions. The failure of a primary riser component could lead to unacceptable consequences, including environmental damage, lost production and possible injury or loss of human life. Identification of the risks facing riser systems and management of these risks are essential to ensure that riser systems operate without failure. Operators have recognized the importance of installing instrumentation such as global positioning systems (GPS), vessel motion measurement packages, wind and wave sensors and Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) units to monitor vessel motions and environmental conditions. Additionally, high precision monitoring equipment has been developed for capturing riser response. Measured data from these instruments allow an operator to determine when the limits of acceptable response, predicted by analysis or determined by physical limitations of the riser components, have been exceeded. Regular processing of measured data through automated routines ensures that integrity can be quickly assessed. This is particularly important following extreme events, such as a hurricane or loop current. High and medium alert levels are set for each parameter, based on design analysis and operating data. Measured data is compared with these alert levels, and when an alert level is reached, further response evaluation or inspection of the components in question is recommended. This paper will describe the role of offshore monitoring in an integrity management program and discuss the development of alert levels based on potential failure modes of the riser systems. The paper will further demonstrate how this process is key for an effective integrity management program for deepwater riser systems.

Integrity Management of Ground Movement Hazards

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Yi Wang ◽  
Don West ◽  
Douglas Dewar ◽  
Alex McKenzie-Johnson ◽  
Millan Sen
Keyword(s):  
Management Program ◽  
Ground Movement ◽  
Tensile Failure ◽  
Weld Strength ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Ground Movements ◽  
Decision Points ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Girth Welds

Ground movements, such as landslides and subsidence/settlement, can pose serious threats to pipeline integrity. The consequence of these incidents can be severe. In the absence of systematic integrity management, preventing and predicting incidents related to ground movements can be difficult. A ground movement management program can reduce the potential of those incidents. Some basic concepts and terms relevant to the management of ground movement hazards are introduced first. A ground movement management program may involve a long segment of a pipeline that may have a threat of failure in unknown locations. Identifying such locations and understanding the potential magnitude of the ground movement is often the starting point of a management program. In other cases, management activities may start after an event is known to have occurred. A sample response process is shown to illustrate key considerations and decision points after the evidence of an event is discovered. Such a process can involve fitness-for-service (FFS) assessment when appropriate information is available. The framework and key elements of FFS assessment are explained, including safety factors on strain capacity. The use of FFS assessment is illustrated through the assessment of tensile failure mode. Assessment models are introduced, including key factors affecting the outcome of an assessment. The unique features of girth welds in vintage pipelines are highlighted because the management of such pipelines is a high priority in North America and perhaps in other parts of the worlds. Common practice and appropriate considerations in a pipeline replacement program in areas of potential ground movement are highlighted. It is advisable to replace pipes with pipes of similar strength and stiffness so the strains can be distributed as broadly as possible. The chemical composition of pipe steels and the mechanical properties of the pipes should be such that the possibility of HAZ softening and weld strength undermatching is minimized. In addition, the benefits and cost of using the workmanship flaw acceptance criteria of API 1104 or equivalent standards in making repair and cutout decisions of vintage pipelines should be evaluated against the possible use of FFS assessment procedures. FFS assessment provides a quantifiable performance target which is not available through the workmanship criteria. However, necessary inputs to perform FFS assessment may not be readily available. Ongoing work intended to address some of the gaps is briefly described.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document