Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90449
LIMIT STATES DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT OF ONSHORE PIPELINES
Maher Nessim C-FER Technologies Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ABSTRACT In 2005, guidelines for the application of reliability-based design and assessment (RBDA) to natural gas pipelines were developed under PRCI sponsorship. The methodology underlying these guidelines has since been adopted as a non-mandatory Annex in the CSA Z662 standard (Annex O). The benefits of reliability-based methods include consistent safety levels, optimized solutions that make best use of available resources and flexibility in addressing non-standard problems. The key limitations of the methodology are that it requires specialized expertise, good data and a significant analysis effort. One approach that has been successfully used to simplify the application of reliability-based methods is to develop simple design and assessment rules that are designed to meet specified safety levels. In this approach, which is referred to here as limit states design and assessment, the checking rules incorporate safety factors that are calibrated to meet pre-selected reliability targets, within a specified tolerance, over a wide range of possible design and assessment cases. Probabilistic analyses are performed as part of the development stage, but the resulting checks are deterministic. The basic elements required to calibrate limit states design and assessment checks have been developed as part of the RBDA methodology, making the development of a limit states approach feasible. This paper provides an overview of an ongoing Joint Industry Project to develop a limit states design and assessment standard that addresses the key threats to the safety of onshore pipelines. The benefits and limitations of this approach are discussed in comparison to the full RBDA approach, and the expected outcomes of the project are described. INTRODUCTION Probabilistic design methods have been incorporated in the CSA Z662 pipeline standard since the mid-1990s. The first probabilistic approach incorporated in the standard was the rule-based limit states approach in Annex C [1]. In principle, this approach uses a set of deterministic checks that are calibrated to achieve specified reliability targets. When this Annex was included in the standard, its purpose was to introduce the methodology and open the door for its application, rather than provide a definitive set of design and assessment checks. This approach was adopted because the knowledge and resources required to calibrate the safety factors were not available at the time. Currently, the Annex includes preliminary safety factors for selected limit states, but it specifies that a calibration process is required to verify those factors before they can be used. Because of this, use of Annex C since its publication in 1996 has been limited. In 2005, guidelines for the application of reliability-based design and assessment (RBDA) to natural gas pipelines were developed under PRCI sponsorship. The methodology underlying these guidelines has since been adopted as a non-mandatory Annex in CSA Z662 (Annex O [1]). This Annex uses a full reliability-based approach that requires the user to calculate the failure probability and compare it to a specified target. During the approval process of Annex O, it was recognized that the RBDA process involves some complex calculations that present challenges for users and regulators. It was also recognized that the key technical issues related to the application of probabilistic methods to pipelines were addressed during the development of the RBDA approach. Based on this, it was considered timely to revisit Annex C and consider further developing it into a fully calibrated rule-based limit states design and assessment approach [2]. In 2009, Natural Resources Canada, using funding from the Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD), sponsored a feasibility assessment that defined the scope of work required to develop a rule-based limit states standard for onshore pipelines. This information was then used as a basis to initiate a Joint Industry Project (JIP) funded by seven industry and government organizations (see Acknowledgements section) and carried out by C-FER Technologies (C-FER) and Det Norske Veritas (DNV). The purpose of the JIP is to carry out the work required to produce a set of deterministic design and assessment rules for onshore pipelines that meet specified reliability targets and to draft a document that can be used as a basis for incorporating the approach in current standards. The

Copyright 2012 by ASME

JIP has been ongoing since 2010 and is scheduled for completion in 2013. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the approach being used to develop the rule-based limit states standard document. Expected application, both as a potential addition to the CSA standard and as a general approach for making design and assessment decisions, is discussed and the benefits and limitations of the approach in comparison to the full RBDA approach are outlined. PROBABILISTIC DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT METHODS Overview The essence of probabilistic design and assessment methods is to use reliability as the primary measure of safety, where reliability is defined the probability that a certain length of pipeline (typically 1 km) will not reach any of the applicable limit states for a certain period of time (typically 1 year). Because reliability is a direct representation of the ultimate safety objective, namely to minimize the chance of failure, it provides a meaningful and consistent measure of the effectiveness of various design and operational options in achieving the objective.
DECISION ANALYSIS RISK BASED RELIABILITY BASED DETERMINSTIC RULE BASED Demand and capacity based on pre-defined criteria Define demand Find solution that meets the specified safety factors Define capacity Define limit states

using a number of different approaches that vary with respect to the level of detail used. Figure 1 shows eight basic steps that can be involved in implementing a probabilistic design and assessment approach. It also indicates that there are at least four distinct implementation approaches, each involving some or all of the eight steps, with simpler implementations being subsets of more detailed ones. These approaches are described briefly in the following: 1. Decision Analysis. Decision analysis is the most comprehensive approach, involving all eight steps outlined in Figure 1. In this approach, the demand (also referred to as the load effect) and capacity (also referred to as the resistance) are represented by probability distributions, and these distributions are used to calculate the probability of failure (or reliability). Failure consequences are also quantified and combined with the failure probability to estimate the risk, which is defined as the expectation of the consequences or simply as the product of the probability of failure and the associated consequence severity. To evaluate the merit of a specific solution, the associated cost of implementation is quantified. Decision analysis is then used to find an optimal solution that achieves the highest overall value, considering all associated costs and risks. Decision theory (see [3]) defines a number of strategies and approaches to deal with the required tradeoffs between financial, safety-related and environmental implications of the decision. Risk-based Design and Assessment. The risk-based approach involves six of the eight steps outlined in Figure 1, terminating upon calculation of the risk level associated with a proposed solution. In this approach, a particular solution is evaluated by comparing the calculated risk to a pre-defined tolerable risk level, and this process is repeated until an acceptable solution is found. Tolerable risk levels may be based on guidelines provided by industry groups and regulatory bodies (e.g. [4,5]). Reliability-based Design and Assessment. The reliability-based approach involves four of the eight steps in Figure 1. The limit state definition and failure probability calculation are the same as for decision analysis and risk-based methods. Reliability-based methods do not involve consequence analyses or risk calculations. Design or operational solutions are evaluated against a pre-defined reliability level, referred to as the target reliability. Although consequences are not considered explicitly, it is common to vary the target reliability levels based on the anticipated consequences of failure. Where consequences are expected to be more severe, higher target reliability levels are specified [6,7]. Rule-based Design and Assessment. This approach involves three of the eight analysis steps. It is a primarily deterministic approach that uses a procedure involving pre-defined safety factors. The demand and capacity are calculated using a set of pre-defined rules and criteria, and

2.

Demand and capacity defined by probability distributions Find solution that meets reliability target

Calculate failure probability (or reliability)

3.

Consequences estimated Find solution that meets tolerable risk levels

Define failure consequences

Estimate Risk

Costs estimated and combined with risk into a measure of overall value Find optimal solution

Define limit states

Define limit states

Figure 1 Different Implementations of Probabilistic Design and Assessment

4.

The probabilistic design and assessment methodology provides a structured process in which relevant uncertainties can be characterized. The methodology can be implemented

Copyright 2012 by ASME

safety factors are applied to the calculated values. The probabilistic basis for this approach is implicit in the values of the safety factors and the criteria used to define demand and capacity, which are selected to ensure that specified reliability targets are met. Although the concept of limit states is utilized in all probabilistic design and assessment methods, the rule-based approach has been commonly referred to in the literature as the limit states design approach. Following this terminology, the approach being discussed here will be referred to in the remainder of the paper as limit states design and assessment. Advantages and Limitations Probabilistic design and assessment methods base decisions on the true structural behaviour, considering all applicable threats. They can achieve consistent safety levels by targeting specified levels of risk or reliability. By avoiding unnecessary conservatism, resources can be allocated where they are most effective in enhancing safety, and the safety level achieved by a certain level of expenditure is maximized. In addition, the use of an objective and direct measure of safety can facilitate communication between operators, regulators and the public. The key advantage of the rule-based approach in comparison to other probabilistic methods is that the resulting rules are simpler and more objective. This makes the approach easier to use and ensures a higher degree of consistency in the decisions reached by different users for the same problem. The main challenge is that the calibration process can be complex and the resulting checking rules cannot exactly meet the reliability targets for all cases. Despite these limitations, the method has been successfully implemented in many codes over the past four decades (e.g. [8-15]). Of particular relevance is its application to offshore pipelines in DNV OS-F101 [6] and API RP 1111 [16]. FORMAT AND INTERPRETATION A limit states check can take a number of different formats; the one used here is as follows:
DE c ( X ic) CA c (Y
jc )

(1)

where DEc is the characteristic demand; Xic is the characteristic value of an input variable used to calculate the characteristic demand; is a safety factor; CAc is the characteristic capacity; and Yjc is a characteristic value of an input variable used to calculate the characteristic capacity. As an example, a check for burst of defect-free pipe can be written by expressing the demand and capacity in terms of the relevant basic variables including pressure (P), diameter (D), flow stress (f) and wall thickness (t). This leads to the following:
( Pc Dc ) ( 2
fc t c )

factor () and the criteria used to define the characteristic value of each basic variable. Typical characteristic values that may be used in the example in Equation (2) are the maximum operating pressure (MOP) for Pc, nominal diameter and wall thickness for Dc and tc, and a multiple of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) for fc. It is worth noting that it may be advantageous in some cases to define the safety factor as a combination of separate factors applied to individual variables or terms in Equations (1) or (2) (e.g. demand factor, capacity factor and consequence severity factor). A format that uses a single factor for demand (load) and a single factor for capacity (resistance) is often referred to as the load and resistance factor (LRFD) format. A format that uses individual factors for selected input variables is usually referred to as a partial safety factor format. As illustrated in Figure 2, the probabilistic nature of demand and capacity dictates that a small overlap area between the two distributions exists. This overlap implies the possibility that the demand will exceed the capacity leading to failure. The essence of the rule-based limit states approach is to ensure that there is enough separation between the demand and capacity distributions to limit the failure probability to a sufficiently small value. In the check format given in Equation (1), the degree of separation is determined by the location of the characteristic values of demand and capacity in relation to their respective probability distributions and the value of the safety factor. These values are selected using a calibration process (see the following section) that aims to ensure that the reliability target is met as consistently as possible over the range of pipelines for which the check is applicable. The characteristic values of key input parameters can be selected from the appropriate tails of their respective probability distributions (upper tail if the rate of change of reliability with respect to the parameter is negative and lower tail if the rate of change is positive). This approach accounts for input parameter uncertainty, thereby reducing the residual uncertainty that is accounted for by the safety factor and improving consistency in meeting the reliability targets. A simplified example is shown in Figure 2, where the characteristic demand is on the upper distribution tail (i.e. a small probability of exceedance) and the characteristic capacity is on the lower distribution tail (i.e. a small probability of non-exceedance).
Separation due to safety factor

Capacity distribution Demand distribution Small overlap leading to possibility of failure

(2)
Characteristic demand Characteristic capacity

Demand or Capacity

This format recognizes that the demand and capacity may be calculated from a set of basic variables using appropriate models. The check is fully defined by the value of the safety

Figure 2 Illustration of the Rule-based Limit States Design Format

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CALIBRATION APPROACH Overview The limit state standard calibration process is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. The main steps involved are as follows: 1. Define scope and format of the standard. This involves defining the fluids, loads and limit states to be included and the specific checks to be calibrated. Define reliability targets. The reliability targets must reflect the magnitude of failure consequences and are therefore defined as a function of the limit state type and selected pipeline parameters. Calibrate standard. Standard calibration is an empirical, iterative process that aims to find a set of criteria and safety factors that meet the reliability targets for all limit states and for all pipelines within the scope of the standard. In this work, two iteration loops are considered: an outer loop that deals with the selection of universal criteria that apply to all limit states (e.g. the characteristic values of material properties and pipe wall thickness); and an inner loop that deals with the calibration of design criteria specific to each limit state. Prepare standard. Once all checks are finalized, the standard document can be prepared.
Define Scope and Format of Standard

Scope Fluids Consideration was given to applying the limit states approach to all fluids covered by CSA Z662, including natural gas, low vapour pressure (LVP) liquids, high vapour pressure (HVP) liquids, sour fluids and CO2. The key to including any particular fluid is the ability to define appropriate reliability targets that reflect the magnitude of release consequences. Considering the state of the art in the area of reliability targets (see next section) and to keep the scope manageable, the initial development has been limited to pipelines transporting non-sour natural gas and LVP liquids (including refined products). Limit State Categories The limit state categories used in the development are based on those described in Annex O [1]. They are as follows:

2.

3.

Ultimate Limit State (ULS). A limit state that leads to loss of containment and results in a significant potential for safety-related or environmental damage. This category includes large leaks and ruptures. Leakage Limit State (LLS). A small (pinhole) leak leading to limited loss of containment. Depending on the fluid in the pipeline, an LLS may result in some safety or environmental consequences, but these will generally be less severe than for a ULS. Serviceability Limit State (SLS). A limit state that results in failure to meet a design or service requirement without leading to loss of containment. This category includes yielding, ovalization, denting and excessive plastic deformation.

4.

Define Reliability Targets

Calibrate Standard Define Universal Criteria

Calibrate Checks for Specific Limit States (Fig. 4)

The key to this characterization is that it groups limit states into categories with similar consequences, thereby allowing the use of a single approach to define the reliability target for each combination of fluid and limit state category. Limit States Table 1 (reproduced from [1]) includes a comprehensive list of the loads and limit states that could apply to an onshore pipeline throughout its life cycle phases (transportation, construction and operation). The table classifies each limit state as ultimate, leakage or serviceability. The primary load for each limit state is shown in Column 2 and loads that could act in combination with the primary load are shown in Column 3.

Repeat for All Limit States

Iterate to Ensure Overall Consistency

Prepare Standard Document

Figure 3 Standard Calibration Process

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 1 List of Limit States from Annex O of CSA Z662

Life Cycle Phase Load Case 1 Accidental impact Transportation 2 Cyclic bending 3 Stacking weight 4 Cold field bending 5 Bending during installation Companion Load Cases Denting / gouging Fatigue crack growth Ovalization Local Buckling Plastic collapse Local Buckling Girth weld tensile fracture Local buckling Excessive plastic deformations 7 Hydrostatic test Burst of defect-free pipe Burst at dent-gouge defect Burst at seam weld defect Excessive plastic deformations Burst at corrosion defect Small leak at corrosion defect 8 Internal pressure Burst at environmental crack (SCC) Small Leak at environmental crack (SCC) Burst of a manufacturing defect Small leak of a manufacturing defect Ductile fracture propagation Burst of a weld defect 9 Overburden and surface loads 8 Small leak of a weld defect Plastic collapse Ovalization Formation of mechanism by yielding 10 Gravity loads on above-ground spans 8 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture 11 Above ground span support settlement 8,10 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture 12 Wind on above-ground spans 8,10 Dynamic instability Burst of crack by fatigue 8,14,15 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture 14 Seismic loads 8,15, 13 or Local buckling 16 or 17 Girth weld tensile fracture 8 Local buckling Upheaval buckling 16 Frost heave 8,14,15 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture 17 Thaw settlement 8,14,15 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture Excessive plastic deformation 18 Loss of soil support (e.g., subsidence) 8,15 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture Dynamic instability 19 River bottom erosion 8,15 Formation of mechanism by yielding Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture 20 Buoyancy 8,15 Floatation Denting 21 Outside force 8 Puncture Burst of a gouged dent Small leak of a gouged dent 23 Sabotage 8 Rupture Limit State Type SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS SLS or ULS1 ULS LLS ULS LLS ULS LLS ULS ULS LLS SLS or ULS SLS SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 SLS or ULS1 ULS SLS or ULS1 SLS ULS ULS LLS ULS
1

Limit State

Construction

6 Directional drilling tension and bending

13 Slope instability, ground movement Operation

15 Restrained thermal expansion

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 2 Prioritized List of Limit States Considered in The Current Project

Companion Load Cases

Life Cycle Phase

Load Case

Limit State

Limit State Type

Limit

Check Type

Group

1 Internal Pressure(1)

Excessive plastic deformation Burst of defect-free pipe

SLS ULS ULS LLS SLS SLS or ULS SLS ULS LLS ULS LLS ULS LLS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS

Stress Stress Stress Stress Strain Stress Strain Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Stress Strain Strain Strain Strain Strain Strain Strain Strain

Design Design Design Design Design Design Design In-service In-service In-service In-service In-service In-service Design(2) Design(2) Design Design Both Both Both Both

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 Equipment impact 3 Restrained thermal expansion 4 Overburden and surface loads

1 1 1

Puncture or burst of gouged dent Small leak of a gouged dent Local buckling Plastic collapse Ovalization Burst at corrosion defect Small leak at corrosion defect Burst at environmental crack (SCC)

1 Internal pressure Operation Small Leak at environmental crack (SCC) Burst of a manufacturing defect Small leak of a manufacturing defect 5 Slope instability, ground movement 1,6,3 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture 6 Seismic loads 1,3, 5 or 7 or Local buckling 8 Girth weld tensile fracture 1,6,3 Local buckling Girth weld tensile fracture Local buckling 8 Thaw settlement 1,6,3 Girth weld tensile fracture 1 May also be applicable under hydrostatic test pressure 2 An in-service check is also applicable for gradual slope movements

7 Frost heave

To keep the scope of the initial standard development manageable, it was necessary to develop a short list of limit states to be included in the calibration. This short list was developed by subjectively assessing each limit state in Table 1 with respect to the relative length of pipeline to which it is likely to apply (frequency) and the likelihood that it will govern design and assessment decisions where it applies (relevance). In assessing frequency, special consideration was given to arctic pipelines, so that frost heave and thaw settlement were assigned a high frequency because they apply to large proportions of specific pipelines. The short list was developed by eliminating limit states that were judged to have low relevance or low frequency. The resulting short list of limit states is shown in Table 2 and organized into the following three groups:

of pipelines (slope crossings). Each limit state in this group is considered at the design stage, with the potential for an additional requirement to carry out in-service assessments in the case of slowly developing deformations (e.g. frost heave, thaw settlement and slope creep). These limit states were assigned the third-highest priority. Safety Approach Reliability Targets The reliability target for a given limit state category is defined as a function of the parameters that have a significant impact on the associated consequences as shown in Table 3. The assumptions used in developing the table are as follows: 1) the magnitude of SLS and natural gas LLS consequences is reasonably independent of pipeline design parameters; 2) the release volume associated with LLS (small leaks) is reasonably independent of pipeline size or pressure; and 3) ULS targets are governed by safety consequences for natural gas and environmental impact for LVP liquids. In interpreting these assumptions, it should be recognized that reliability targets are defined in order-of-magnitude steps and therefore the factors that need to be captured are those that can change the failure consequences by as much as an order of magnitude.

Group 1 includes the basic structural limit states that apply to all pipelines and are addressed in the design stage. These limit states were assigned the highest priority. Group 2 includes in-service limit states that apply either to all pipelines (corrosion) or to specific pipelines (SCC and manufacturing cracks). These were assigned the second-highest priority. Group 3 includes geotechnical limit states that apply to specific pipelines (e.g. arctic pipelines) or specific sections

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 3 Parameters Influencing Reliability Targets for Different Limit State Categories
Product Limit State ULS LLS SLS ULS LLS SLS Parameter Population Env. Pressure Density Sensitivity X Single target Single target X X Single target

Diameter

Natural gas LVP liquids

magnitude). A different combination of safety factors and characteristic values is then defined for each safety class. Users are provided with criteria to place a given pipeline in a specific safety class, and the appropriate design or assessment check is then selected accordingly. This approach has some commonality with the location class factor used as a basis for selecting the design factor in current natural gas design standards. Individual Check Calibration The approach used to calibrate each design or assessment check is illustrated in Figure 4. The first step is to develop the models required to calculate the failure probability. For each limit state, the required model consists of a deterministic function that defines parameter combinations leading to the limit state being reached or exceeded, incorporated within a failure probability calculation algorithm. The probability distributions of the input parameters are then defined and used in the probability calculation model to carry out the iterative calibration process. This process involves selecting a set of safety factors and characteristic values, using them for each test case to find an acceptable solution, calculating the probability of failure associated with the resulting solution, and comparing it to the reliability target. Each set of safety factors and characteristic values is evaluated based on its ability to achieve consistency in meeting the reliability target over the test cases, and the best set is chosen.
Develop Failure Probability Models Characterize Input Parameter Distributions Select Test Cases Calibrate Check Define Safety factor & Characteristic Input Values Calculate Characteristic Demand Ensure Characteristic Capacity > Characteristic Demand Calculate Failure Probability Iterate to Optimize Check

The reliability targets are defined using the same general approach underlying Annex O of CSA Z662. Following this approach, SLS targets are based on precedent from other systems and standards. LLS targets for natural gas pipelines are based on historical small leak rates. LLS targets for LVP pipelines and ULS targets for both LVP and natural gas pipelines are defined using a risk-based approach, which is calibrated to ensure that all pipelines meet or exceed the average safety level associated with new pipelines designed to recognized standards and maintained to current best practices. For natural gas pipelines, the targets used in the project are based directly on the results of previous PRCI-sponsored work performed in connection with the full RBDA approach adopted in Annex O [7,17]. For LVP pipelines, the targets are adapted from the results of an ongoing PRCI project that utilizes the same general approach. This target development approach was adopted because it derives the reliability requirements from accepted standards and current best practice, avoiding the use of arbitrary or subjective safety levels. In addition, it is consistent with previous work that has been developed with guidance from the pipeline industry and has also been adopted in CSA Z662. The key challenge associated with using the risk-based methodology is that it requires calculation of a performance benchmark, which is defined in terms of explicit risk measures such as fatality and environmental damage expectation. Explicit calculation of this benchmark has resulted in significant debate during the various stages of developing and presenting the RBDA approach to various stakeholders. It is hoped, however, that as the industry becomes more familiar with the concepts and benefits of quantitative risk methods, the approach will be better understood and more widely accepted. Safety Classes for ULS The safety factors and characteristic values used in a given check are calibrated to meet a specified reliability target. If the ULS targets are defined as continuous functions of such consequence-related parameters as diameter, pressure and population density (see Table 3), the ULS safety factors and/or characteristic values must also be defined as continuous functions of the same parameters. To simplify calibration and application, a set of safety classes is defined to group cases with similar reliability targets (e.g. within one order of

Figure 4 Check Calibration for a Specific Limit State

A deterministic check cannot achieve the reliability target exactly for all test cases. It is therefore inevitable that the actual reliability resulting from applying the limit state checks will exhibit some deviation from the target for different cases. Theoretically, the optimum set of checks may be characterized as the one that minimizes a measure of the overall deviation from the target for all cases, without exceeding a specified maximum deviation for any individual case. In practice, however, such optimization schemes are quite complex,

Copyright 2012 by ASME

especially when multiple checks affecting the overall reliability of the pipeline are considered. For this project, an informal approach is used to evaluate the limit states checks developed. This approach involves ensuring that the checks match the allowable failure probability on average for all cases, while ensuring that no individual case deviates from its allowable failure probability by more than a specified amount (e.g. one order of magnitude). STANDARD DEVELOPMENT The major tasks involved in developing a limit state standard are shown in Figure 5. They include two preparatory items dealing with defining reliability targets and finalizing the format and scope of the standard. Some of the outcomes of these two tasks are discussed in earlier sections of this paper. The next three major tasks deal with design check calibration for each of the three major limit state groups, namely basic design limit states, in-service limit states and geotechnical limit states. Finally, the last two tasks deal with overall consistency checking of the design criteria and preparation of the standard document.

The work is being carried out in three separate phases. The first phase, which was completed in 2011, included the preparatory items (reliability targets and standard format) and a first pass calibration of the basic design limit states relating to burst of defect-free pipe, equipment impact failures and thermal expansion. The second phase, which was completed in early 2012, addressed the preliminary calibration of in-service limit state assessment checks for corrosion, SCC and seam weld cracks. The third phase will consolidate the design and in-service checks developed in the first two phases, cast them in a practical format that strikes an appropriate balance between simplicity and consistency, and incorporate them into a code-like document that can be submitted to various standards for possible inclusion. Geotechnical limit states have been deferred to a fourth phase and their development will start with a single loading type to ensure feasibility and provide a template for other geotechnical loads. Final results of this work are likely to be published in the future, subject to approval of the funding members.

Figure 5 Major Standard Development Tasks

SUMMARY A probabilistic rule-based design and assessment approach for onshore pipelines is being developed. This will provide a simple and consistent methodology to address widely applicable design and assessment issues such as internal pressure, thermal expansion, equipment impact and defect assessment. It will also provide guidance on the design and management of geotechnical loads. The approach being developed will enable users to take advantage of the key benefits of probabilistic design and assessment methods, including consistent safety levels and maximized safety for a given level of expenditure. In addition, it addresses some of the issues that have presented obstacles to the application of other probabilistic approaches, including complexity of the required probabilistic calculations, potential for significant differences between the results produced by

different users and the need to use explicit measures of safety and environmental risks. One of the main limitations of the rule-based limit state approach is that it cannot meet the reliability targets for all pipelines. The targets are met on average with the recognition that some cases will deviate from the desired safety levels within a controlled interval. In addition, the approach can only be calibrated and validated for key design and assessment conditions that are sufficiently common to merit the required development effort. In the context of the above advantages and limitations, the rule-based limit state approach is seen as one important tool among the many ways in which reliability-based methods can be applied. It is most effective in situations where approximate reliability-based solutions need to be developed by pipeline practitioners for common issues of design and assessment,

Copyright 2012 by ASME

without the involvement of probabilistic analysis specialists. Where more refined solutions are required or special uncommon limit states apply, other probabilistic methods will need to be used. Development of the rule-based approach and offering it to standard committees is believed to be a timely next step in the natural progression of making probabilistic design and assessment approaches available to the pipeline industry. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for the program is provided by Alliance Pipeline, BP, Enbridge, ExxonMobil, Natural Resources Canada, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and TransCanada PipeLines. The author wishes to thank these organizations and their representatives for their valuable guidance and for granting permission to publish this paper. In addition, the technical support provided by DNV and Brian Rothwell Consulting Inc. as subcontractors during different stages of the work is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES [1] CSA. 2011. CSA Standard Z662-11: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, June. [2] CSA. 2006. Workshop on CSA Draft Annex O: Reliability Based Design and Assessment for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines. Workshop Summary Report, November 6, Calgary, Alberta, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. HSE. 2001. Reducing Risks, Protecting People HSEs Decision-making Process. Health and Safety Executive, London, U.K. MIACC. 1995. Land Use Guidelines for Pipeline Corridors. Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. DNV. 2010. Submarine Pipeline Systems. Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101, October. DNV

[10] CEB. 1975. International System of Unified Technical Regulations for Structures. Comit Europen Du Bton, Bulletin dInformation No. 111, Paris, France. [11] AISC. 1986. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, September. [12] CSA. 2004. CSA S471-04, General Requirements, Design, Criteria, the Environment, and Loads. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario. [13] CSA. 1994. CAN/CSA-S16.1, Limit States Design of Steel Structures. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario. [14] ACI. 1983. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI-318-83). American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. [15] CSA. 1994. CAN/CSA-A23.3, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario. [16] API. 2009. Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design). API Recommended Practice 1111, Fourth Edition, December. [17] Nessim, M., Zhou, W., Zhou, J. and Rothwell, B. 2009. Target Reliability Levels for Design and Assessment of Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 131, No. 6, Paper No. 061701, December.

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6] [7]

Nessim, M.A., Zhou, W., Zhou, J., Rothwell, B. and McLamb, M. 2004. Target Reliability Levels for Design and Assessment of Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines. Presented at the 5th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IPC04-0321, Calgary, Alberta, October 4-8. ACI. 1971. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI-318-71). American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. CSA. 1973. Code for the Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings. CAN/CSA A23.3, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario.

[8]

[9]

Copyright 2012 by ASME