3 views

Uploaded by BaronHarkonen

Deterministic vs Probabilistic Met

- 1.pdf
- Engineering practice.txt
- Pds
- ISO_Standards.pdf
- Cargill 3
- R1LV0408DSB_
- Risk Based Inspection (RBI)-How to Do
- PROCESADOR DE CONTROLADORA LIMBELT 210X2.pdf
- 9370 Data Sheet
- Reliability Analysis of Pharmaceutical Plant
- 20100040650
- AMMJ274
- Pipeline Engineer
- Valves Inside Pits
- API Pipeline Catalogue
- Pdm Secrets Revealed by Allied 1st Ed
- COMMISSIONING OF PIPE AND FLARE STACK.pdf
- Control System Design.pdf
- Reliability
- Pd m Secrets Revealed by Allied 1 Sted

You are on page 1of 7

net/publication/266469067

Pipeline Corrosions

CITATIONS READS

4 154

3 authors:

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Delft University of Technology

66 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS 327 PUBLICATIONS 2,616 CITATIONS

J. K. Vrijling

Delft University of Technology

242 PUBLICATIONS 2,682 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PRO-COAST: Probabilistic assessment of large-scale sandy interventions in the coastal zone View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P.H.A.J.M. Van Gelder on 10 February 2015.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth (2009) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Osaka, Japan, June 21-26, 2009

Copyright © 2009 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)

ISBN 978-1-880653-53-1 (Set); ISSN 1098-618

in Assessing Marine Pipeline Corrosions

Zahiraniza Mustaffa, Pieter van Gelder, Han Vrijling

Hydraulic Structures and Probabilistic Design, Hydraulic Engineering Section

Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology

Delft, The Netherlands

protect the public, financial investment and environment from such

This paper provides comparisons between the deterministic and failures.

probabilistic methods through results obtained from a recent reported

work. The study focuses on corrosions, a mechanism that leads to Apart from the existing deterministic method used in structural design,

reduction in pipeline structural integrity. It has been shown in this there is a trend in the development of safety concepts as well as in

paper that certain limitations in the deterministic method, through the economical approaches by implying more probabilistic concepts. This

failure pressure models, have been counter parted by results obtained paper is aiming at providing comparisons between the deterministic and

from the probabilistic method. In addition to that, the paper probabilistic methods when assessing risk in aging marine pipelines.

summarizes some insights on the significance of fluid-structure An overview of deterministic method is presented at the beginning of

interaction between the external flow and pipeline itself, in which this the paper followed by a brief introduction to the probabilistic method.

new discovery is very much relevant to be carried out in a probabilistic The application of the latter is shown through corrosion defects in a

manner as well. marine pipeline. A new insight on fluid-structure interactions is

summarized at the end of the paper, in which the significance of

KEY WORDS: pipeline; corrosions; fluid structure interactions uncertainties in pipeline hydrodynamics may be used to support the

application of probabilistic method into the existing pipeline designs.

INTRODUCTION

DETERMINISTIC METHOD

Marine pipelines, a complex system comprises a total length of

thousands of kilometers, have been the most practical and low price In structural design, the level of safety in each design component may

means of transporting hydrocarbon (oil, gas, condensate, and their be evaluated in several ways, as given in Table 1.

mixtures) in the offshore oil and gas industry. These pipelines are

among one of the main factors contributing to marine environmental Level I method have been used as the common practice when designing

risks, exposing damages from material defects and pipe corrosion to a structure. It offers values of partial safety factors for the most

ground erosion, tectonic movements on the bottom, and encountering common strength and load parameters, as shown in Figure 1(a). Some

ship anchors and bottom trawls. Depending on the cause and nature of of the disadvantages of deterministic method as reported by Vrijling

the damage (cracks, ruptures, and others), a pipeline can become either (2006) are (i) unknown how safe the structure is, (ii) no insight in

a source of small and long-term leakage or an abrupt (even explosive) contribution of different individual failure mechanisms, (iii) no insight

blowout of hydrocarbons near the bottom. Recent statistics data by the in importance of different input parameters, (iv) uncertainties in

Offshore Environment shows that the average probability of accidents variables cannot be taken into account and (v) uncertainties in the

occurring on the underwater main pipelines of North America and physical models cannot be taken into account.

Western Europe are 9.3x10-4 and 6.4x10-4, respectively. Corrosions in

pipelines for instance, was the major cause of reportable incidents in Level II and III on the other hand, are formed by knowledge of

North America and pipeline failures in the Gulf of Mexico. The probability and reliability theory concepts.

corrosion-related cost to the transmission pipeline industry is

approximately $5.4 to $8.6 billion annually.

operational, environmental and accidental loads has been a major

concern to many parties. Therefore, the reliability of marine pipelines

653

Table 1. Safety levels applied in structural design whereas the second way is more suitable for complicated system with

the aid of an Event Tree or Fault Tree. The random variables are

Safety level Description characterized under the load (L) and strength (S), in which they are

Level 0 Deterministic method normally presented in the form of probability density function as shown

Should not be applied in Figure 1(b). This is in contradictory to a single value chosen for L

Level I Semi-probabilistic approach and S as illustrated in Figure 1(a). This paper does not attempt to

Also known as load resistance factored design explain in details the probabilistic method, however, interested readers

Standard design procedures (codes and are recommended to refer to Vrijling (2006), Mohitpour et. al. (2000)

guidelines) and Thoft-Christensen and Murotsu (1986), Madsen et.al. (1986),

Utilizes a single partial coefficient (safety factor) Ditlevsen and Madsen (1996) and Melchers (1999) for detail

to represent an uncertainty variable descriptions on structural systems reliability theory.

Design strength < design load x safety factor

Level II Approximations of the full probabilistic

approach ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

Each variable (strength and load) is approximated

by a standard normal distribution This section presents comparisons between deterministic and

Probability of failure computation is simplified by probabilistic models. An example of risk assessment of an aging

idealizing (linearising) a failure surface marine pipeline system is presented. Nevertheless, only failure due to

Level III Full probabilistic approach (more advanced) corrosion defect is discussed here. For this purpose, this paper adapts

Each variable (strength and load) is defined by its results obtained from study by Caleyo et. al (2002).

own probability density functions

All variables are treated based on the knowledge Failure Pressure Models

of (joint) distribution

Utilizes the exact failure surface which requires The current practice among engineers to assess defects caused by

numerical integration or simulation corrosion involves computation of failure pressure (PF) with respect to

Information needed for this method is not always internal pressure exerted to the marine pipelines. Table 2 shows

available and even if they were, the calculations deterministic equations describing PF for several established existing

would be overwhelming design codes with Figures 2 and 3 visually describe the parameters

involved. These codes are used to evaluate the remaining strength of

corroded pipelines and are mostly developed from extensive series of

Probability

full-scale tests on corroded sections. Each model is governed by input

parameters of pipe outer diameter (D), wall thickness (t), minimum

yield strength (smin) or ultimate tensile strength (suts), longitudinal

Load Strength Load Strength

extend of corrosion (Lc) and corrosion defect depth (d). Detailed

s discussions in each code may be obtained elsewhere, namely Caleyo et.

al. (2002), Lee et. al. (2006), Pluvinage (2007) and Cosham (2007).

m

Probability of Random Lc

failure variables

d

Fig. 1 Comparison in load and strength definitions for two methods

Fig. 2 Corrosion defect in a pipeline wall

PROBABILISTIC METHOD

Actual shape Assumed shape Actual shape Assumed shape

The use of reliability analysis for the purpose of improving designs has

the advantage that it provides a complete framework for the safety

analysis, in which the actual probability of failure, and not some

empirical safety rule is used as a measure of the performance of a a. Parabolic shape b. Rectangular shape

design (Plate, 1993). According to Yen and Tung (1993), reliability

analysis involves two major steps: (1) to identify and analyze the Fig. 3 Assumptions made on corrosion defect shapes

uncertainties of each of the contributing parameters, and (2) to combine

the uncertainties of the random variables to determine the overall

reliability of the structure. Step (2) may be further carried out in two Deterministic vs. Probabilistic Method

ways; (i) directly combining the uncertainties of all the parameters,

and, (ii) separately combining the uncertainties of the parameters One can easily compute the failure pressure of a marine pipeline using

belonging to different disciplines or subsystems to evaluate first the any of the expressions in Table 2. However, PF obtain from each code

respective reliability and then combining the component reliabilities of will result in significant variations. Most researchers have also agreed

the different disciplines or subsystems to yield the overall reliability of that these models are somewhat over conservative.

the structure. The former way applies to very simple structures

654

Table 2. Failure pressure models used to compute remaining strength of pipeline subjected to corrosions

models shape

2 Parabola

PF = 1.11 M = 1 + 0.893 c

D 1 - (2 / 3)(d / t ) / M D t

for 2

L D

0.8 c £ 4

D t

2 s min t Rectangular

PF = 1.1 [1 - (d / t )]

D

for 2

Lc D

0.8 > 4

D t

L D L D

4 2 Arbitrary

B31G PF = 1.11 M = 1 + 0.63 c - 0.0034 c

D 1 - 0.85 (d / t ) / M D t D t

for Lc 2 D

£ 50

D t

2

L D

M = 3.3 + 0.032 c

D t

for Lc 2 D

> 50

D t

DNV RP F101 2 s uts t 1 - (d / t ) L

2 Rectangular and

PF = M = 1 + 0.31 c

D - t 1 - (d / t ) / M Dt

river bottom

profile

SHELL-92 1.8 s uts t 1 - (d / t ) L D

2

PF = M = 1 + 0.805 c

D 1 - (d / t ) / M D t

Rectangular

PF = [1 - (d / t ) / M ] L D L D

M = 1 + 0.63 c - 0.0034 c profile

D D t D t

PCORRC/ Batelle 2 s uts t Rectangular

PF = [1 - (d / t ) / M ] M = 1 - exp -0.157

Lc

D D(t - d ) / 2

This is due to the fact that safety factors applied in each expression In their work, a pipeline containing 50 defects was analyzed, with

were resulted from some limitations occurred during their development. diameter of 914.4 mm, wall thickness of 20.6 mm, material type of

Also, since corrosion occurrence is random in nature, the assumption of API-5L-X52, material yield stress of 358 MPa, material ultimate tensile

corrosion defect shapes (Figure 3) as well as the measurement of the strength of 455 MPa and operating fluid pressure 7.8 MPa. The

defect length and depth (Figure 2) for each model is something to be corrosion defect depth was taken as 50% of the wall thickness while the

deliberated about. The models mostly assume rectangular defect cross- defect length was in the range of 50–200 mm. The pipeline elapsed life

section (Figure 3b) whereas, the actual defect is more like a saucer. was 15 years.

This makes the use of models even more conservative. Other

uncertainties that may significantly affect the evaluation are pipe The corrosion model was formulated using a linear growth

manufacturing data (pipe diameter, wall thickness and yield strength) approximation as given below, which enable one to compute the

and pipeline operating conditions (operating pressure and human changes of corrosion defects with respect to time.

errors). Therefore, it may not be wise to conclude which design code

suits certain corrosion scenario the most. The attempt of applying d(T) = do+Vr(T-To) (1)

probabilistic approach may be appropriate instead.

L(T) = Lo+Va(T-To) (2)

The discussion on this section onwards adapts partly results obtained

from a study by Caleyo et. al (2002) on the risk assessment of marine with d represents the defect depth, L the axial length of the defect, T the

pipelines subjected to corrosion defects. The authors have applied PF elapsed time and To the time of last inspection. do is a percentage of

models in Table 2 to be used in a probabilistic framework. It is defect occurrence with respect to the pipeline thickness with Lo governs

important to highlight here that in principle, any theoretical equations its corresponding length. The axial and radial corrosion rates were

represented by safety factors should not be analysed in a probabilistic assumed to be constant. The axial (Va) and radial (Vr) corrosions rates

manner, as what have been reported. However, for discussion purpose, were computed with defect depth and length, respectively, acting as the

their results are simply presented in this paper as an aid to show the numerators, with the elapsed time as the denominator.

difference between the deterministic and probabilistic methods.

655

Each parameter presented in Table 2 was treated as random variable, before the pipeline starts to fail? Implicitly we only know that as long

but only normal distribution was utilized for this purpose. The as the PF is higher than the operating pressure, the pipeline is

corresponding data and statistical parameters associated to the study considered to be safe. The small change in the constant line would

can be found in their full paper. Two interesting plots from the study never be able to guide us to the failure point of the pipeline and this is

are presented here, as shown in Figure 4. This paper is not aiming to one of the limitations of the graph.

critically compare and contrast results obtained from each design code

in both figures, but to provide an overview of the limitation in the Now, if we were to treat the PF in Table 2 in a probabilistic manner,

deterministic method, which may not be feasible enough to best we would be able to compare them with respect to the operating

describe the performance of an aging pipeline. This brings the pressure (Pop) in the pipeline itself, in which this information could be

probabilistic method into picture, in which the corresponding results of incorporated into a limit state function given by,

Figure 4(a) were then presented in the form of Figure 4(b).

Z= PF – Pop (3)

numerically using the First Order Second Moment (FOSM) reliability

method which finally brought us to the results in Figure 4(b). This

figure presents the Pf in the pipeline with respect to the elapsed time

since last inspection. This time period is normally known as the service

time for a particular pipeline. The x-axis, however, may be represented

by other parameters if needed. It is important to readdress that the Pf

computed here was a measure of the pipeline capability (strength) to

resist the incoming operating pressure (load). It can be seen from the

figure that the probability of the pipeline to fail at the beginning of its

lifetime was low, and the trend (line) became significant as it

approached its mid life time. This is due to the fact that damages

caused by corrosion have reduced the initial pipeline wall thickness,

a. Deterministic method making it incapable to withstand normal operating loads. Finally, as

the pipeline was approaching its final design life, it was prone to fail

with Pf closer to 1.0. Herein, one could directly understand the current

performance of this pipeline for the service time it has been operating.

This plot ensures better explanation of the reliability of an aging

structure without having to refer to other results or plots for further

justification.

account all the uncertainties in the random variables (parameters)

governing the strength and load equations. The presented results are

capable to provide us with a direct explanation on the reliability of the

aging pipeline of interests with respect to its remaining service time.

Fluid-Structure Interactions

b. Probabilistic method development of corrosions in a pipeline. External flows exert pressure

and forces that contribute to external corrosions on a particular

Fig. 4 Remaining strength in an aging marine pipeline described by pipeline. Some new insights on fluid-structure interaction with regard

different approaches (Adapted from Caleyo et. al. (2002)) to external flows approaching the unburied pipelines are presented.

Description on this matter supports the application of probabilistic

The first discussion is about the results presented in Figure 4(a). This method in evaluating the reliability of aging marine pipelines. The

plot was simply based on calculation of PF in Table 2. Failure discussions, however, are qualitative and are subjected to further

pressures for each model were plotted against the normalized defect quantitative work.

length. One would be in preference of a higher PF that a pipeline could

withstand before failure takes place. The higher the value of PF, the When the pipeline is near the seabed, the presence of the seabed

greater the capability for the pipeline to resist load exerted to it. changes the symmetric flow. The flow of wave and/or current around a

However, the plot was general in nature without being able to describe pipeline can result in the generation of sheet vortices, as shown in

the stage of failure, except for the defect shape. An engineer would Figure 5. These vortices are shed alternately from top to bottom of the

appreciate the results better if the values were referred to a certain pipeline. Due to vortex shedding, fluids may generate vibrations of the

meaningful control value. For instance, the graph reveals that the pipeline system, which are to be suppressed if significant. During this

pipeline could withstand higher pressures as long as the corrosion stage, there is a pressure difference between the top and bottom of the

defect size was small. The trend somehow decreased and finally pipeline, in which top (Point A) has lower pressure than bottom

became constant when the defect became larger in size. This is true (Point B). Following the Bernoulli Equation, velocities on top of the

because the pipeline is now incapable to accept more loads. But how pipeline will be higher whereas the bottom part is nearly stagnant.

would we know the final optimum point (from this constant pattern)

656

A negative lift force is produced, as shown in Figure 6. This force has

a significant influence on the behavior of the pipeline which may lead

to its deformation. The attracting force of the seabed tends to pull a

pipeline down to the seabed, exerting high bending stresses in the

pipeline (Lam et. al., 2002). Under normal operational environments,

the pipeline may experience instability failure or strength failure.

Despite the complexity of the theory of vortex shedding surrounding a

pipeline placed close to the seabed, Ming et.al. (2005) has proven the

concept numerically. Their numerical work conformed well to an

experimental work by Jarno-Druaux et.al. (1995), as shown in Figure 7.

Interested readers are advised to refer to the actual papers for further

description of these works.

U A

Circulation

Sea bed B

Pipeline

Fig.7 Comparisons between results obtained from Ming et.al. (2005)

Fig. 5 Flow visualization surrounding a pipeline and Jarno-Druaux et.al. (1995) (Adapted from Ming et.al. (2005))

Negative lift force account for uncertainties in actual soil factor, actual environmental data

(wave, current), actual particle velocity and acceleration and actual

hydrodynamics coefficients. Recommended safety factors are 1.05 for

installation and 1.1 for operation. The latter is also recommended by

DnV RP E305 Clause 3.2.2 (DnV, 1988), DnV 1981 Clause 4.2.5.9

U (DnV, 1981) and Canadian CAN/CSA.Z187 (Guo et. al. 2005). Since

these codes were developed in the 1980s, have the new insights of

fluid-structure information been incorporated into the latest design?

Seabed Also, when talking about the stability analysis, the lift force may be

Pipeline neglected, if the symmetrical flow is assumed in the design. This is

indeed contradicting to the new insights reported earlier.

Fig. 6 A negative lift force produced on a marine pipeline

Looking at the variations and uncertainties found in the external

The above information has supported the significance of fluid-structure pressure exerted to the pipeline, these new insights may be wise to be

interaction between the pipeline close to the seabed and the carried out in a probabilistic manner rather than the deterministic

approaching flow. But how far these new insights have been updated method. There are many ways to go about solving this problem and

into the pipeline designs is still uncertain. A brief summary is provided one of the most recommended methods is by applying the finite

in the next paragraphs to support this argument. element method. This is due to the fact that the problem may not be

easily represented by simple limit state functions. This paper does not

In the traditional pipeline designs, the pressures and forces exerted onto attempt to discuss further on results pertaining to this section as they

a pipeline were incorporated into the section of (i) wall thickness will be presented in different papers and publications.

determination and (ii) stability analysis. We will now briefly compare

and contrast these two sections separately.

CONCLUSIONS

When determining the wall thickness of the pipeline, the hydrostatic

pressure is part of the important parameter governing the equations, as This paper is aiming at comparing the probabilistic and deterministic

shown in Table 3. For design purpose, codes and standards have methods, in which awareness from this is beneficial in assessing risks

selected safety factors of 1.0 and 1.5 to represent the hydrostatic of any civil engineering structures. Risk assessment in an aging marine

pressure term. How can one tell whether these values are sufficient pipeline was taken as an example to differentiate the two approaches

enough to cater the behavior of fluid-structure deliberated earlier? with focus particularly given to corrosion defect type of failure. It has

proven that certain limitations in the deterministic method have been

Eq. (4) is a common equation used to assess the pipeline hydrodynamic counter parted by the probabilistic method in one way or another. New

stability, with µ as the soil friction factor, Ws as the pipeline submerged insights on fluid-structure interaction also support the application of

weight, δ as the slope of the seabed, FL as the lift force, and FD as the probabilistic method. Consequently, the probabilistic approach may be

drag force. able to provide better insights in the design, construction, maintenance

and inspection of certain failure, and thus allowing for better prevention

µ (Ws cos δ- FL) ≥ z [(FD + FD )max + Ws sin δ] (4) measures to be implemented before the problems take hold.

657

Table 3. Equations for pipeline wall thickness determination

pressures

Internal pressure Pd D

tint ernal pressure = + ta

design 2 Ewh s y Ft

External

pressure design External over pressure Pbi and

1

Pbi = Pbb = Pe Pbb are set equal to maximum

P 2.064

Buckle initiation tbuckle initiation = D bi with hydrostatic pressure

0.02 E multiplied with a safety factor

Pe = 1.5 r gh

of 1.5.

1

P 2.4

Buckle tbuckle propagation = D bb

propagation 24s

y

collapse Pc = to maximum hydrostatic

P +P

y

2

e

2

pressure.

Note that t refers to the pipeline wall thickness, Pd is the design internal pressure Melchers R.E (1999) Structural Reliability Methods and Prediction,

defined as the difference between the internal pressure (Pi) and external pressure Second Edition , Wiley.

(Pe), D is the nominal outside diameter, ta is the thickness allowance for Ming, Z, Liang,C, and Hongwei, AH, (2005). “A Finite Element

corrosion, Ew is the weld efficiency, h is the usage factor, sy is the specified Solution of Wave Forces on a Horizontal Circular Cylinder Close to

minimum yield strength, E is the Young’s Modulus, r is the density of sea

the Sea-Bed,” Conference on Global Chinese Scholars on

water, g is acceleration due to gravity and h is the height of water. Pc is the

collapse pressure, Py is the pure plastic collapse pressure, Pel is the pure elastic Hydrodynamics, pp 139-145.

collapse pressure. Mohitpour, M, Golshan H, and Murray, A, (2000). “Pipeline Design &

* Note that the parameter t is defined under the Pel, Py and g(r,d) terms and Construction A Practical Approach,” ASME Press, p 654.

requires comprehensive mathematics solver for its computation. Interested Mustaffa, Z, Shams, G, Van Gelder, PHAJM, and Vrijling, JK (2008).

readers are advised to refer to standards and codes for the full expansion of the “Risk Assessment of Aging Marine Pipelines: A Probabilistic

equation. Approach,” International Conference on Environment, Abstract pp

167.

Plate, EJ, (1993). “Some Remarks on the Use of Reliability Analysis in

Hydraulic Engineering Applications, Reliability and Uncertainty

REFERENCES Analysis in Hydraulic Design,” American Society of Civil Engineers,

pp 5-15.

Caleyo, F, Gonzalez, JL, and Hallen, JM, (2002). “A Study on the Pluvinage, G, (2007). “General Approaches of Pipeline Defect

Reliability Assessment Methodology for Pipelines with Active Assessment,” Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Workshop on

Corrosion Defects,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Safety, Reliability and Risks Associated with Water, Oil and Gas

Piping, 79, pp 77-86. Pipelines, pp 1-22.

Cosham, A, Hopkins, P, and Macdonald, KA, (2007). “Best Practice Thoft-Christensen, P, and Murotsu, Y, (1986) “Application of

for the Assessment of Defects in Pipelines – Corrosions,” Structural Systems Reliability Theory,” Springer-Verlag, p 343.

Engineering Failure Analysis, 14, pp 1245-1265. Tung, YK, and Yen, BC, (1993). “Some Recent Progress in

Ditlevsen O. and Madsen H.O. (1996) Structural Reliability Methods, Uncertainty Analysis for Hydraulic Design, Reliability and

Wiley Uncertainty Analysis in Hydraulic Design,” American Society of

Guo, B, Song, S, Chacko, J, Ghalambor, A, (2005). “Offshore Civil Engineers, pp 17-34.

Pipelines,” Elsevier, p 281. Van Gelder, PHAJM, (1999). “Statistical Methods for the Risk-Based

Jarno-Druaux, A, Sakout, A, Lambert, E, (1995), “Interference Design of Civil Structures,” PhD Thesis, Delft University of

Between a Circular Cylinder and a Plane Wall Under Waves,” Technology, p 249.

Journal of Fluids and Structures, 1995, 9, pp 215–230. Van Gelder, PHAJM, and Vrijling, JK, (1997a). “A Comparative Study

Lam, KY, Wang, QX, and Zong, Z, (2002). “A Nonlinear Fluid of Different Parameter Estimation Methods for Statistical

Structure Interaction Analysis of a Near-Bed Submarine Pipeline in a Distribution Functions in Civil Engineering Applications,” Structural

Current,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, 16(8), pp 1177-1191. Safety and Reliability, Vol 1, pp 665-668.

Lee, OS, Kim, DH, and Choi, SS, (2006). “Reliability of Buried Vrijling, JK, et. al. (2006). “Probability in Civil Engineering,” Delft

Pipeline Using a Theory of Probability of Failure,” Solid State University of Technology Publications.

Phenomena, Vol 110, pp 221-230. Yen, BC, and Tung, YK, (1993). “Some Recent Progress in Reliability

in Hydraulic Design,” American Society of Civil Engineers,pp 35-79. Analysis for Hydraulic Design, Reliability and Uncertainty Analysis

Madsen, H.O. Krenk, S and Lind, N.C. (1986), Methods of Structural in Hydraulic Design,” American Society of Civil Engineers,pp 35-79.

Safety, Prentice Hall.

658

- 1.pdfUploaded byDrVikas Singh Bhadoria
- Engineering practice.txtUploaded byMahesh Kumar
- PdsUploaded byafendi
- ISO_Standards.pdfUploaded bysandy4u2k2
- Cargill 3Uploaded byBang Anuh
- R1LV0408DSB_Uploaded bymichaelliu123456
- Risk Based Inspection (RBI)-How to DoUploaded byAna Marks
- PROCESADOR DE CONTROLADORA LIMBELT 210X2.pdfUploaded byjose
- 9370 Data SheetUploaded byandy175
- Reliability Analysis of Pharmaceutical PlantUploaded bymexx007
- 20100040650Uploaded bytohema
- AMMJ274Uploaded byAnonymous OP4lm2PBDH
- Pipeline EngineerUploaded byAlamirfan Mohammad
- Valves Inside PitsUploaded byyogacruise
- API Pipeline CatalogueUploaded bySathish Kumar
- Pdm Secrets Revealed by Allied 1st EdUploaded byRene Leal
- COMMISSIONING OF PIPE AND FLARE STACK.pdfUploaded byABRAHAM ESTRADA
- Control System Design.pdfUploaded bykhali54
- ReliabilityUploaded byMCASAREZV
- Pd m Secrets Revealed by Allied 1 StedUploaded byJose20306214009
- 0708.0369Uploaded byiledinamo1
- cht16Uploaded byKle Kats
- rumbleUploaded byLuis Carlos Espinoza
- Performance-Based Design and Analysis of the Messina Strait BridgeUploaded bylucasgambi
- ISO_Standards.pdfUploaded bysandy4u2k2
- guidlines10mayUploaded byAnil Singh
- aw_981CUploaded bysmshaidr
- SmartBall QuestionnaireUploaded bySunil Kumar
- A EngUploaded by19602011
- API Summit 2013Uploaded bynktiah1207

- A Que Esperan Los Monos__ - Yasmina KhadraUploaded byBaronHarkonen
- Manual de Configuracion Adsl Tplink (1)Uploaded bybresler_lin
- Riser & pipeline release frequenciesUploaded bytheblues2708
- 157995289 Enfoque de Las 7 s de MckinseyUploaded bySpeedy Qzs
- Fitzpatrick_Maxwell Equations and the Principles of Electromagnetism_1934015202Uploaded byapi-3728411
- A Que Esperan Los Monos__ - Yasmina KhadraUploaded byBaronHarkonen
- Tatiana - Martin Cruz SmithUploaded byBaronHarkonen
- Desarrollos IoTUploaded byBaronHarkonen
- Spanish Translation of Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper, V5 (edited with OpenOffice on .odt) - January 30th 2014Uploaded bygubatron

- HiggsSignals-1-manual.pdfUploaded byMichael Scofield
- How Do You Get Hiv or AidsUploaded byAbhishekSingh
- All Plants Are Our Brothers and SistersUploaded byMichael Felix
- Carti PDF FotografieUploaded bySimone Winny
- Economic Structure of IndiaUploaded byVijendra Kalmodiya
- Wilson Hope Ladies Complete Golf Set ReviewUploaded byBrian Angeli
- Atlas Copco Boomer MD Spare Parts Catalogue Part-2Uploaded byEFREN SANCHEZ ROBLES
- Computational Intelligent Data Analysis for Sustainable Development.pdfUploaded byfghjkltyuio
- yog pranayam bandh mudra.docUploaded byAbhijit Gokhale
- Drug Addiction BIOLOGYUploaded byTarsem Garg
- 7 measurementUploaded byapi-349304431
- D6352Uploaded byrimi7al
- Sumo Submersible Borehole Pumps.pdfUploaded byDhanasekaran Arumugam
- RM3-400_series_C2_A4sizeUploaded byaldariz201181
- 04 Circulating Well Control Methods_1Uploaded bysitemaster60
- adc2xx-en-3Uploaded byimanfirmansyah99
- Concrete Manual Part 2 9th Edition (USBR)Uploaded bygreat_triskelion
- Solved SAIL(MT) Exam Paper for Mechanical EngineerUploaded byLingesh
- Lab1Uploaded byAshish Kumar
- DAISy 2 Plus AIS Receiver ManualUploaded bytariktunad
- Analysis of Road Accident in Hisar TehsilUploaded byesatjournals
- Preparation of the Great Philosophic StoneUploaded byHoot4Real
- Kanta Sa SimbahanUploaded byJohan Shane Carsido
- MBC21JOrganometUploaded bytaylor
- Ascdc-man-op-concrete Pouring & Testing Monitoring02Uploaded byaristeo garzon
- Lankhorst RopesUploaded bytmmehta
- Refrigeration and cryogenicsUploaded byJunhyo Lee
- Bowel IncontinenceUploaded byprashanth
- Teknik-Menjawab-Kimia-SPM BETUL SALAH.ppsxUploaded byCik Su
- NX100 MaintenanceUploaded byRubenCuevas