International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Review

Review of pipeline integrity management practices

Hossam A. Kishawy a, Hossam A. Gabbar b, *
a b

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), 2000 Simcoe St. N., Oshawa ON L1H 7K4 ON, Canada Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), 2000 Simcoe St. N., Oshawa ON L1H 7K4 ON, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 13 July 2009 Received in revised form 13 April 2010 Accepted 30 April 2010 Keywords: Pipeline integrity Pipeline failure analysis Integrity management

a b s t r a c t
Pipeline integrity is the cornerstone of many industrial and engineering systems. This paper provides a review and analysis of all aspects related to pipeline integrity. Pipeline threats are explained and failures are classied. Design practices are discussed using pressure criteria. Inspection techniques are studied and used as a basis for describing the corresponding integrity assessment techniques, which are linked with integrity monitoring and maintenance criteria. Finally, pipeline integrity management system design is presented using activity models, process models, and knowledge structures. The paper will be useful for further development of automated tools to support pipeline integrity management. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Pipelines function as blood vessels serving to bring life-necessities such as water or natural gas and to take away life waste like sewage. And they are considered to be the most favored mode of transportation of gas/liquid in large quantities. Many of the pipelines were built by specic companies to transport commodities to their customers in their respective territories. Furthermore, pipeline companies must continue to operate protably, and thus pipelines are interconnected at national and global level. The network of pipelines indisputably out-rates other transportation modes such as truck/train due to its cost effectiveness, convenience, high land use efciency, higher reliability, higher degree of safety and security and environmental friendliness over great distances. However, as pipeline infrastructures represent a high capital investment and pipelines must be free from the risk of degradation which could cause environmental hazards and potential threats to life, pipeline integrity design, monitoring and management become very crucial. For example, improper design of storm sewers can threaten lives, such as drowning children or even adults swept into or fallen into a storm sewer without a grate. Improper maintenance of natural gas pipelines threatens property and life from explosion and re resulting from pipeline leaks or rupture. Furthermore, highly dangerous gases or liquids, such as cyanide, and highly radioactive wastes, such as those existing in nuclear weapons plants pose a high risk to the workers of those plants, and to the neighbors

of such plants. They must be designed and operated with extreme care. Leaks or ruptures of such pipes must be prevented at all costs. Pipeline integrity connotes the concepts of failure prevention, inspection and repair, and it also includes products, practices and services that help operators maximize their assets. With entire economies built on reliable pipeline, its integrity is receiving more attention than ever from the very composition of its tubular structure to the high-tech ways of building, modeling, managing, monitoring and repairing. It begins at the project conception stage and allows for risk mitigation and long-term optimized performance to be built into the nal design. This article will brief on typical threats faced by pipeline integrity and techniques widely used in management and monitoring. 1.1. Pipeline integrity threats With many kilometers of the pipeline buried in dirt or submerged in water and with coatings that can range in thickness from a few microns to several metres, there are many categories of threats to pipeline integrity:  Material and construction defects, e.g. defective longitudinal pipe seam, pipe body or joint welds;  Mechanical damage from construction, maintenance or thirdparty excavation;  Incorrect operation;  Corrosion,creep and cracking mechanisms;  Device failures and malfunctions;  Earth forces such as earthquakes, land slips or telluric currents and weather related threats such as high winds, rough seas or cold/hot temperatures.

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: hossam.gabbar@uoit.ca (H.A. Gabbar). 0308-0161/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2010.04.003

374

H.A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380

Due to the varied forms of threats, there appears to be a trend in not only thinking defensively but also in taking an aggressive position toward safety and asset optimization. In order to keep up with the demands of regulations, economics and applications, the reliability of the pipeline begins with the quality of the line pipe used. Companies constructing new pipelines have an array of materials and coatings at their disposal that were not available just a few years ago. Advances in metallurgy give pipe manufacturers the ability to ne-tune alloys to meet the most demanding conditions, including high-temperature/high-pressure, arctic and sour applications. However, even with these technology advances, it is still important to have a robust pipeline integrity management system. It is a process for assessing and mitigating pipeline risks in order to reduce both the likelihood and consequences of incidents. 1.2. Pipeline integrity management Recent pipeline failures, as shown in Fig. 1, have resulted in the U.S. Department of Transportation issuing regulations that aim at enhancing pipeline integrity management through inspection, testing and analysis of pipelines that run through or near high consequence areas [1]. Pipeline integrity management consists of pipeline assessment, inspection, defect and repair, and maintenance. However, based on different types of pipes, the integrity management focuses on different aspects of the system. Highpressure pipes, for example, are those where the internal pressure of the pipe is so high that the prime attention of the management is to ensure the safety of the pipelines from bursting or leaking. Most long-distance petroleum and natural gas pipelines belong to this category. Low-pressure pipes where the internal pressure is so low, focus should be posed on governing the external loads. Most sewer pipes and culverts belong to this category. For intermediate-pressure pipes especially those with large diameters and relatively thin walls are subjected to large external loads and earthquakes or other natural disasters. Alexander [2] developed to present ideas associated with the development of an Engineering-Based Integrity Management

Program (EB-IMP) which based in part on the principles embodied in the API 579 Fitness for Service document. At its core, API 579 makes use of a three-level assessment process to evaluate the tness for service of a particular component or system. There are other models like 5-M approach and Model developed by Canadian association of petroleum producers (CAPP).Generally each pipeline integrity management program shall contain the following components [3]: (1) a process for identifying the pipeline segments and failure mode that could affect a high consequence area; (2) a baseline assessment plan; (3) an analysis that integrates all available information about the integrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure; (4) criteria for repair actions to address integrity issues raised by the assessment plan and information analysis; (5) a continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain pipeline integrity; (6) identication of preventive and mitigation measures for protecting the high consequence area; (7) methods to measure the programs effectiveness; and (8) a process for the review of integrity assessment results and for information analysis. Experience shows that properly designed, inspected and maintained pipelines can continue safely serving the needs for decades. Thats why pipeline operators use a combination of direct assessments, hydrostatic testing and internal inspection tools for ensuring the safe and reliable delivery of worlds most vital natural resource. 2. Pipeline integrity design Based on different type of pipes, there are special design considerations involved: 2.1. High-pressure pipes For higher-pressure pipes effect of temperature change has to be considered. For pipelines with rigid supports, the pipe is restrained by the supports to expand lengthwise. If signicant temperature changes occur, due to either weather change or cooling following hot welding of a restrained pipe during repair, high stresses can be

Fig. 1. Recent failure of pipelines in the USA [1].

H.A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380

375

generated in the pipe to cause the pipe to break, buckle, or bend excessively, or destroy the supports. For pipelines not supported uniformly and when a lateral load exists, pipe bending is another factor that needs to be considered when designing for a high-pressure pipeline. Any lateral load applied to the pipe, including its own weight, causes the pipe to sag or bend between adjacent supports. Such bending causes a moment at any cross section of the pipe, which in turn generates a bending tensile stress. The maximum bending stress happens at the location of maximum bending moment, which most often happens at the mid-span, and at the outer face or edge of the bend. The stress is a tension on the outer part of the bend, and compression on the inner side of the bend. Such bending stresses can also happen to buried pipelines when the bedding or ground support for a portion of the buried pipe is lost due to scouring, earthquake, or ground settlement. Pipe bending affects pipeline design in another important way. The ow in a pipe can produce very large forces on pipe bends and responsible for corrosion and erosion, especially when the uid pressure is high. This requires careful design of thrust blocks, which are usually heavy reinforced concrete structures, to resist such thrusts. 2.2. Low-pressure pipes For low-pressure pipes, analysis and design are focused on soil properties, soilepipe interaction, installation (bedding) method, and the rigidity of the pipes. The design of low-pressure or non-pressure pipes is focused on external instead of internal loads. Especially important to the design of these pipes is the earth load, which depends on the properties and conditions of the soil. Meanwhile, the soil-pipe interaction is highly complicated by the fact that the system is structurally indeterminate. This means that the forces and stresses between the soil and the pipe cannot be determined from using only statics and dynamics (Newtons laws). The stiffness properties of the pipe and of the soil must also be included in the analysis. Further complicating the matter is the fact that the soil properties vary both with space and time; they are three-dimensional and unsteady. Due to such complexity, most analyses of soilepipe interaction are semi-empirical relying on many simplifying assumptions and experimental data. Based on the stiffness properties of the pipes, the design should distinguish between rigid and exible pipes. For the rigid pipe systems, integrity design includes the following steps [3]: (1) determine the earth load; (2) determine the live load by using empirical data; (3) combine the earth load with the live load, by adding them together; (4) select the type of construction, and determine the corresponding bedding factor; (5) determine the safety factor from standards or codes (if no standards exist on safety factor, use a minimum of 1.5); and (6) select the pipe strength. As for exible pipes, when a pipe of circular cross section is under earth load from above. This force deforms the pipe into an elliptical shape. Such deformation and deections are to be referred to as ring deformation and ring deections, respectively. Such large deections reduce the cross-sectional area of the ow, and create potential risks in the transportation of uids and obstacles in testing. Other factors accompanying with rigid pipes and highpressure pipes include buckling, earthquake loads, and stress caused by thermal expansion, which should also be considered in the design of exible pipes. 3. Pipeline inspection management The purpose of integrity assessment management is to ensure that the material, practices, and inspection tools used to maintain

a safe pipeline are state-of-the-art. An assessment process usually includes developing a pipeline integrity assessment management plan, gathering information, conducting risk assessment and prioritizing utilizing risk-ranking software. Proper inspection is the key to safe and reliable pipeline operations. Some inspecting methods include: pigging, hydro-testing, and external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA) and internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA), and some of which are briey introduced as follows [3e6]:

3.1. Smart pigs Smart Pigs are cylinder-shaped electronic devices used by the oil pipeline industry to detect loss of metal and in some cases deformations in the pipeline. Inserted into the pipeline and propelled by the owing liquid, smart pigs record certain physical data about the pipelines integrity (e.g. location of reduced pipe wall thickness, dents, etc.) as it moves through the pipeline. Evaluation of smart pig data allows the pipeline operator to make integrity decisions about the pipeline and to nd and mitigate potential problem areas before they become a problem. Since their development in the 1960s, smart pigs have undergone several generations of technological advancements. As smart pig technology has evolved, pipeline operators have required the use of specialized smart pigs. Specialized smart pigs have evolved into three types: metal loss tools, crack detection tools and geometry tools. 3.1.1. Metal loss tools (corrosion tools) A. Magnetic ux leakage (MFL): This tool induces a magnetic eld to the pipe. As it travels, it locates and records magnetic ux anomalies in the pipe. The recorded magnetic ux data is converted information that provides an indication of metal loss in the pipe. There are two types of these tools, high resolution MFL and standard resolution MFL. The main difference between the two is in the number of sensors and the amount of resolution. Most MFL tools can determine the location and oclock position of the metal loss anomaly and detect if a corrosion anomaly is internal or external to the pipe wall. It also provides data of each corrosion anomaly including its length and maximum pit depth, which allows for calculation to determine the pipes remaining strength. MFL pigs are generally capable of detecting corrosion greater than 20% of the pipe wall thickness in depth, although actual indication reporting varies by smart pig vendor and corrosion anomaly conguration. However, axially-oriented aws such as stress corrosion cracking, selective seam corrosion and axial gouges are difcult to detect with MFL pigs. B. Ultrasonic: Also called a UT tool, this tool provides similar physical pipe data as the MFL tool, but it uses ultrasonic technology. The UT tool transmits an ultrasonic pulse into the pipe wall and directly measures its thickness. Since this technology requires a clean pipe wall, it is generally not used for certain pipelines such as crude lines with a parafn build-up. There are also wall-thickness limitations with the UT tool. It works well with heavy-wall pipe, but not as well with thin-wall pipe, and it is not as widely used as the MFL tool.

3.1.2. Crack detection tools These are the more recent addition to the pipeline operators suite of integrity assessment tools. Some of these technologies are fairly new and still developing:

376

H.A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380

A. Ultrasonic crack detection: This tool generates an ultrasonic signal into the pipe wall that is reected off the internal and outer surfaces of the pipe. If a crack is detected, the signal reects back along the same path of the tool. Since a liquid coupling is required between the sensors and the pipe wall, this tool works only with liquid pipelines. B. Transverse magnetic ux leakage: This evolving technology magnetizes the pipe wall around its circumference to detect cracks, such as longitudinal seams cracks and longitudinal seam corrosion. This tool is similar to the standard MFL tool mentioned above; however, the induced magnetic eld is in a transverse or perpendicular direction. This tool also has limitations e cracks must have sufcient width, or gap, to be detected, and the severity of the crack is not determined. C. Elastic wave tool: This evolving technology operates by sending ultrasounds in two directions along the pipeline to locate and size longitudinally oriented cracks and manufacturing defects.
Fig. 2. Pipeline excavation to examine the external coating and assess corrosion [6].

3.1.3. Geometry tools The purpose of geometry tools is to gather information about the physical shape, or geometry, of a pipeline. Geometry tools are primarily used to nd outside force damage, or dents, in the pipeline. However, they can also generally detect and locate mainline valves, ttings, and other appurtenances. As with all inline inspection tools, these tools have limits on their use and in the extent of results obtained. The two main types of geometry tools utilize the same principle: A. Caliper tools: This tool utilizes a set of mechanical ngers or arms that ride against the internal surface of the pipe or use electromagnetic methods to detect dents or deformations B. Pipe deformation tools: This tool operates the same as a caliper tool, but it also utilizes gyroscopes to provide the oclock position of the dent or deformation in the pipe. This tool can generally provide pipe bend information as well. 3.2. Mapping tools This tool can be utilized in conjunction with other tools described above to provide global positioning system (GPS) correlated mapping of the pipeline and other physical location data, such as for valves and other appurtenances. 3.3. Long range guided wave inspection The Guided Wave technology screens the piping which is in operation, insulated and even be buried to inspect metal loss features such as corrosion and erosion. Long range guided waves with frequency less than 100 kHz are used to map the corrosion and erosion in the pipes. 3.4. Hydrostatic testing Hydrostatic testing is used to conduct strength tests on new pipes while in the manufacturing process, as well as at the completion of pipeline installation in the eld prior to being placed in service. Hydrostatic testing is also used, at times, for integrity assurance after a pipeline is in operation. Hydrostatic tests are generally the preferred integrity assessment method when the pipeline is not capable of being internally inspected or if defects are suspected that may not be detectable by internal inspection smart pigs. The hydrostatic test establishes the pressure carrying capacity of a pipeline and may identify defects that could affect integrity during operation. Testing is done to a pressure that is greater than

the normal operating pressure of the pipeline. This provides a margin of safety. The test stresses the pipeline to a predetermined percentage of its specied minimum yield strength, and the test is generally held for eight hours. If stress corrosion cracking is suspected, the test pressure may be increased to 100% to 105% of specied minimum yield strength or higher for 30 min to an hour [3]. Axial aws such as stress corrosion cracking, longitudinal seam cracking, selective seam corrosion, long narrow axial (channel) corrosion and axial gouges are difcult to detect with Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) pigs and are better detected with a hydrostatic test. Hydrostatic testing requires the ability to acquire large quantities of test water, which in some areas may be difcult. Once used, the test water may contain trace quantities of petroleum products, which may require treatment of the water prior to discharging or disposal. Finally, hydrostatic testing requires the pipeline to be out of service for a period of time thus potentially curtailing the availability of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, crude oil, and/or home heating oil at the delivery point.

4. Pipeline assessment methods 4.1. External corrosion direct assessment Since only about 50% of pipelines are conventionally piggable, direct assessment was developed as an alternative to internal

Fig. 3. Sample pipeline elevation prole [12].

H.A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380

377

inspection tools and pressure testing [6e8]. It is a proactive procedure that prevents and detects external corrosion defects before they grow to a size that damages the pipes structural integrity. ECDA is usually a four-step process for assessing the integrity of a section of pipeline:     Pre-assessment Indirect inspections Direct examination Post-assessment

The pre-assessment involves data collection and visualization, determination of the feasibility of direct assessment, identication of ECDA regions and calculation of the probability of failure of the pipeline. The indirect inspection is to perform over-the-ground surveys for the severity of coating faults, other anomalies and areas where potential corrosion exists. The direct examination includes analyzing the indirect inspection data and determining which indications are most severe. Fig. 2 [6] shows an excavation to examine a pipe for external corrosion. Finally, during the post-assessment, the data collected from the direct examination and indirect inspection are analyzed, and the overall effectiveness of the ECDA process is evaluated and the interval reassessment is established. 4.2. Internal corrosion direct assessment Internal corrosion attack is one of the more serious aging mechanisms in pipeline systems that transport gaseous material. Internal corrosion can cause either a penetration of the gas containment boundary that results in a leak or a decrease in structural strength that results in a catastrophic failure. For the safe and reliable operation of these pipeline systems, it is important to detect the location and quantify the amount of internal corrosion that occurs before they reach critical conditions. There are three approaches to control internal corrosion: CAPP Recommended Practices, ICDA approach, and 5-M approach.[9] CAPP recommended approach is most complete in nature but it is quantitative in nature on other hand 5-M approach (Modeling, Mitigation,

Monitoring, Maintenance and Managements) has not been applied in practically. ICDA methods have been ratied for dry gas pipelines and some are currently being developed for liquid petroleum and wet gas to meet the need for the assessment of pipeline integrity with respect to likelihood of internal corrosion [10e13]. As a direct assessment, the process of ICDA is similar to that of ECDA. The purpose of ICDA is to determine areas of high potential for water hold-up in a pipeline system. The basis of the analysis is on locations where the inclination angle of the pipeline exceeds the critical angle. Inclination angle is simply the changing elevation as a function of the linear distance along the line. To determine the inclination angle of the pipeline, the pipelines elevation prole must be understood. The pipeline elevation prole can be obtained using several means: visually interpreted directly from alignment sheets, using GPS survey information, or automatically generated using a GIS tool, as shown in Fig. 3 [14]. Once the inclination angle is determined, the basic procedure of ICDA is as follows [14]:  Determine the rst location along the pipeline with an inclination angle that exceeds the critical angle.  If all inclination angles exceed the critical angle, then choose the angle of highest inclination.  Examine the target location(s). If no corrosion is found, then downstream corrosion is unlikely.  Examine locations that have the highest inclination angles to provide integrity information. 5. Pipeline integrity monitoring and maintenance Pipeline integrity monitoring includes a variety of measures to monitor the condition of the pipeline including its immediate environment, in order to determine or prevent damage to the pipe and its associated equipments, maximize the efciency and safety of the pipeline, minimize potential accidents and service interruptions due to pipeline neglect, and safeguard company and public interests. The following is a partial list of conventional measures that should be included in pipeline integrity monitoring [3].

Fig. 4. IDEF0 based activity model for pipeline integrity management.

378

H.A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380

Construct Pipeline Process Models

Define Required Measurements Conduct Reliability Analysis & Risk Assessment

Construct Pipeline Control Models

Construct Pipeline Failure Models

Define Operating Procedures of Pipelines

Develop Measurement Devices (e.g. pig)

Define Maintenance Tasks

Analyze Measurements

Fig. 5. Proposed process model for pipeline integrity management.

 Leak detection by using a variety of measures including: 1) mass-balance method, also referred to as the materials balance method, uses the continuity equation of one-dimensional ow between an upstream point and a downstream point to calculate the amount of ow due to leakage or rupture, 2) pressure-drop method, measured by pressure transducers, is useful especially when the spacing between transducers is small, 3) computational modeling of pipeline systems, which sets up a system of equations on the computer based on uid mechanics and input data pertaining to the pipeline system, to predict the velocity, discharge, pressure, and temperature, 4) visual and photographic observations, 5) round-penetrating radar, 6) pigs used to examine pipes for dents, corrosion (loss of metals), and possible cracks and 7) dogs that can detect the scent at concentrations as low as 10e18 molar.  Visual inspection of pipe exterior for any exposed pipe or exposed portion of a pipeline.  Underwater inspection of pipe exterior for submarine pipes by using divers or special submarines carrying photographic equipment.

 Remote sensing by satellites for early detection of encroachment by heavy vehicles traveling on or across a pipeline rightof-way, or detection of other conditions that may threaten the pipelines integrity, such as a ood, a landslide, or ground subsidence.  Line patrols ying over pipeline right-of-way to detect problems or potential problems.  Daily checking of pumps and other rotating machines used in running the pipeline.  Checking of pressure regulators and pressure-relief valves.  Checking of control valves.  Checking the calibration of ow meters, pressure transducers, and other sensors. Considering the laboriousness and inefciency of the most conventional methods listed above, more and more attentions have been paid to the development of intelligent integrity monitoring systems. For instance, some industries [15] developed and applied ber optic sensing technologies in pipeline integrity monitoring. In this monitoring system, the light is launched into the ber core and

Pipeline Structure

Degradation

Environment Impacts

Deterioration

Maintenance Strategy Risk & Reliability Analysis

Inspection Tasks Condition Monitoring Tasks Repair Tasks

Pipeline Operation

Pipeline Behavior

Control Systems

Materials

Operating Procedures (Recipe)

Scheduling

Fig. 6. Knowledge structure of pipeline integrity management.

H.A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380

379

Pipe Failure Pressure (Q)

Cross-Sectional Area of Metal Lost in Corroded Region (in Longitudinal Axis of Pipe) Original Cross-Sectional Area of Corroded Region

Average Defect Depth & Longitudinal Length Pipe Wall Thickness & Defect Longitudinal Length

Probability of Failure

Repair Criteria

Pipeline Inspection

Folias Factor for Pipe Bulging Before Failure

Corrosion Rate for Defect Depth & Length

Flow Stress & Yield Stress Maximum Allowable Pressure Probability of Detection Defect Size Measurement Error Condition Assessment Overall Defect Population Detected Defect Population
Fig. 7. Knowledge structure of pipeline inspection, repair, and maintenance.

Pipe Diameter & Wall Thickness

propagates along the length of the ber attached to the pipeline. Specialized sensing instrumentation was congured such that any external disturbance of the ber, which alters some of the characteristics of the guided light (i.e., amplitude, phase, wavelength, polarization, modal distribution and time-of ight), can be monitored and related to the magnitude of the disturbing inuence. Awawdeh et al. [16] investigated the application of an AdHoc wireless network coupled with accelerometer sensors for noninvasive continuous monitoring of ow rate and other ow patterns in large pipeline networks. The sensors rely on tracking ow-induced vibrations to directly estimate the change in the ow rate, and thus provide a means for detection and early warning of integrity loss in pipeline infrastructure. More recently, Bonny et al. [17] utilized vibration and acoustic emission sensor with short wavelengths to recognize the change in the ow characteristics of a liquid medium as it passed through a section of damaged pipeline and associated the change in sound emission prole with the
Table 1 Detailed knowledge structure to support pipeline integrity management. Pipeline structure Pipeline behavior Pipeline operation Materials Degradation/ deterioration Environmental impacts Maintenance strategy Risk and reliability analysis Inspection tasks Monitoring tasks Repair tasks Scheduling Segment id, geometry, ports Phenomena, state equations, transitions Procedure, unit procedure, operation, and phase, steps, formula, preepost conditions Material properties, materials involved in each operation/behavior Failure class, symptoms, causes, consequences, behavioral equations of failure Environmental index, associated risk, environmental impact Selected maintenance strategy for each pipeline segment Risk (failure frequency, magnitude of consequence) Inspection tasks, frequency, details Monitoring tasks, process variable, frequency, expected amounts, deviations Repair task details, repair cost (estimated, actual) Operation scheduling, resources required

simulated failure modes. The result was found that piezoelectric vibration sound emission sensor is capable of detecting changes in the ow characteristics and has potential to form the basis of an integrated wireless sensor device. 6. Design of pipeline integrity management system 6.1. Activity models Pipeline goes through life cycle starting from design, construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning or replacement. Pipeline integrity management should be considered throughout the life cycle. In order to understand the proposed pipeline integrity management process models and to formulate best practices of pipeline integrity management, IDEF0 [18] is used to develop activity models, as shown in Fig. 4. 6.2. Pipeline design process models In the above activity models pipeline design is the cornerstone stage where all operational and maintenance activities are dened and validated, which is denoted as activity A1 in Fig. 4. In order to understand the detailed activities involved in pipeline design, detailed process models are developed as shown in Fig. 5. Pipeline design includes dening process models, uid dynamic models, operation models, control models, risk and reliability analysis, failure analysis, monitoring and maintenance requirements, construction specications, and demolishing specications [19]. Standards such as API (API 1160) [20], ASME B31.8 [21], ISA, ISO, and IEC are employed to support the design stage, and to conrm the tness for service and integrity measures. 6.3. Knowledge structure Integrity management can be viewed as risk-informed decisions to ensure tness for service throughout the life time of

380

H.A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87 (2010) 373e380 [4] Manian Leon, Hodgdon Arthur M. Pipeline integrity assessment and management. Materials Performance; 2005:18e22. [5] Rankin Larry G. Pipeline integrity information integration. Materials Performance; 2004:43e6. [6] Klechka Ernest W. Pipeline integrity management and corrosion control. Materials Performance; 2002:24e7. [7] Menno T Van Os, van Mastrigt P, Francis A. An external corrosion direct assessment module for a pipeline integrity management system, 6th International Pipeline Conference, September 25e29, 2006, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [8] Van Menno T, Van Mastrigt P. A direct assessment module for pipeline integrity management at Gasunie. In: 23rd World Gas Conference; 2006. Amsterdam. [9] Papavinasam S, Doiron A, Revie RW. Integrity management of new pipelines: internal corrosion control, CORROSION/2006, paper no. 187. Houston, TX: NACE; 2006. [10] Moghissi OC, Norris L, Dusek P, Cookingham B. Internal corrosion direct assessment of gas transmission pipelines. Corrosion; 2002. [11] Schmidt Matt. Practical applications of the internal corrosion direct assessment process for natural gas pipelines. Corrosion; 2003. [12] NACE standard practice. Internal corrosion direct assessment methodology for pipelines carrying normally dry natural gas, NACE SP0206-2006. [13] Lagad VV, Srinivasan S, Kane RD. Facilitating internal corrosion direct assessment using advanced ow and corrosion prediction models. Corrosion; 2008. [14] Hendren ES, McKay J, Biagiotti Jr S. The challenges of implementing the internal corrosion direct assessment method. Corrosion; 2003. [15] Tapanes E. Fibre optic sensing solutions for real-time integrity monitoring. Australia: Future Fibre Technologies Pty. Ltd. [16] Awawdeh A, Bukkapatnam STS, Kumara SRT, Bunting C, Komanduri R. Wireless sensing of ow-induced vibrations for pipeline integrity monitoring. In: IEEE sensor array and multichannel signal processing workshop; 2006. [17] Umeadi Bonny BN, Jones KG. The development of an intelligent sensor for the monitoring of pipeline system integrity. Oil and Gas; 2008. [18] IDEF0, http://www.idef.com/idef0.html. [19] Peng Xingyu, Peng Zhang, Song Risheng. Integrity management system model design and development for new oil and gas long-distance pipeline. ASCE Conference Proceedings 2009;361(4). doi:10.1061/41073(361)4. [20] Managing system integrity for hazardous liquid pipelines, API standard 1160 (ANSI/API STD 1160e2001). 1st ed.; November 2001. [21] Lewis K. Integrity management of pipelines. In: Congreso International de Ductos (International Pipeline Congress); 2001. Mrida, Yucatn, Mexico.

pipeline. This requires constructing knowledge structure to support pipeline life cycle. A typical knowledge structure is proposed as shown in Fig. 6 which is further described as in Table 1. Fig. 7 shows the detailed knowledge structure of pipeline inspection, repair and maintenance. It includes repair criteria and maximum allowable pressure, which is linked with pipe failure pressure, probability of failure, inspection, probability of detection (i.e. detectability), measurement error, defect size and defect population. It shows the relationships between pipe failure, stress, corrosion factor, and geometry. 7. Conclusion As a sub-industry, pipeline integrity appears to have a bright future. Pipeline integrity practices and technologies must continue to evolve. As the worlds energy needs continue to rise with growing international industrialization, the worlds pipeline infrastructure will have to meet the increasing pressures of demand. In order to maintain their own scal health as well as the safety and well-being of the environment and the communities they serve, pipeline companies will continue to rely on advances in pipeline integrity practices and management for continuing benet. References
[1] Hopkins P. Pipeline integrity: some lessons learnt. In: WTIA international pipeline integrity & repairs conference; 2004. Sydney, Australia. [2] Alexander CR. Evaluating damaged subsea pipelines using an engineering-based integrity management program. Proceedings of IOPF 2009 (paper no. IOPF2009-6002), ASME International Offshore Pipeline Forum, October 28e29, 2009, Houston, Texas. [3] Liu Henry. Pipeline engineering. Lewis Publishers; 2003.