7 views

Uploaded by Ankush Varshney

A comprehensive
framework for evaluation of piping reliability due to
erosion–corrosion for risk- informed inservice
inspection

save

You are on page 1of 7

**Gopika Vinoda,*, S.K. Bidharb, H.S. Kushwahaa, A.K. Vermab, A. Srividyab
**

a

Reactor Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400 085, India b Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India

Abstract Risk-Informed In-Service Inspection (RI-ISI) aims at prioritizing the components for inspection within the permissible risk level thereby avoiding unnecessary inspections. The two main factors that go into the prioritization of components are failure frequency and the consequence of the failure of these components. The study has been focused on piping component as presented in this paper. Failure frequency of piping is highly inﬂuenced by the degradation mechanism acting on it and these frequencies are modiﬁed as and when maintenance/ISI activities are taken up. In order to incorporate the effects of degradation mechanism and maintenance activities, a Markov model has been suggested as an efﬁcient method for realistic analysis. Emphasis has been given to the erosion – corrosion mechanism, which is dominant in Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors. The paper highlights an analytical model for estimating the corrosion rates and also for ﬁnding the failure probability of piping, which can be further used in RI-ISI.

Keywords: Risk informed in-service inspection; Erosion–corrosion; Markov model; First order reliability method

1. Introduction 1.1. Background Piping systems are part of most sensitive structural elements of power plant. Therefore, the analysis of these system and quantiﬁcation of their fragility in terms of failure probability are of utmost importance. From plant operating experience, it has been found that various degradation mechanisms can result in piping failures like thermal fatigue, vibration fatigue, Erosion –Corrosion (E/C), Stress corrosion cracking, corrosion fatigue, water hammer, etc. Recent inspections have indicated that carbon steel outlet feeder pipes in some CANDU reactors are experiencing wall loss near the exit from the reactor core [1]. Examination has indicated that the mechanism causing the wall loss is erosion corrosion, at rates higher than expected. Experimental observation or plant measurements strongly reveal that E/C also depends on piping layout, local

distribution of ﬂow properties and ﬂow chemistry characteristics. Since CANDU plants have seen various instances of E/C attack, attention has been given to estimate a realistic value for piping failure probability due to erosion corrosion. This paper presents a framework for estimating the piping failure probability due to erosion corrosion and further describes model to incorporate the effects of In-Service Inspection so that realistic estimate can be deduced. 1.2. Objective and scope of the study This study originated with an aim to ﬁnd the realistic failure frequency of piping segments based on the degradation mechanisms to be employed in Risk Informed In-Service Inspection studies. Since E/C is one of the prominent degradation mechanisms, estimation of corrosion rate due to this mechanism is the scope of the current study. However, after the corrosion rates have been established, the rest of the approach can be applied to other corrosion mechanisms in a similar way. Since First Order Reliability Method (FORM) is being widely used in Structural Reliability Analysis problems, the authors also propose the same approach [2]. After estimating the base failure

this rate is reduced to a factor of 100– 1000 compared to pH of 9. 1. which is still not well understood. ð2:1Þ where b ¼ 0. which makes it less protective. The solubility of magnetite is a function of temperature. incorporating the effects of InService Inspection and degradation mechanism. Once corrosion rate is known. Determining the relevant hydrodynamic parameters for E/C Mathematical models for the estimation of rate of erosion corrosion depend on large of parameters. PH2 is the pressure of molecular hydrogen gas. Markov model ﬁnds a realistic failure frequency. Essentially major decrease in erosion-corrosion rate is found as one approaches near 300 8C. 3: The equilibrium constants Kb .1. carbon steel systems are operated at about 200 8C at velocities greater than 6 m/s with lower pH values.2. ½FeðOHÞb þ [H ] is the activity of the hydrogen ion in the solution. 2. About erosion –corrosion Erosion-corrosion of the material is a complex phenomenon. Estimation of corrosion rates The PHWR primary piping is made of carbon steel of grade A-106 GrB operating around 300 8C. four different ferrous ion complexes can be formed upon dissolution of magnetite. Markov approach has been employed as suggested by Fleming et al. Recent advance in understanding of erosion – corrosion mechanism . an oxide ﬁlm is formed on the surface of the metal. and solution composition. Not much attention has been focused by researchers for developing models for rates of Erosion– Corrosion since this mechanism is predominant mostly in PHWRs. Fig. 1 depicts the complete frame work for the ﬂow of activities to be carried out towards estimation of failure frequency of piping segment. When water reacts with iron. hydrogen activity. This oxide layer consists of magnetite when water is deoxygenated. Framework for failure frequency estimation.5. On the other hand the effect of the chemical environment may reduce the ability of material to resist mechanical attack and cause this latter effect. 22bÞþ Fe3 O4 þ 3ð2 2 bÞHþ ¼ 3FeðOHÞð þ ð4 2 3bÞH2 O b probability. ð22bÞþ =3 Kb ¼ ½FeðOHÞb =½Hþ ð22bÞ P1 H2 ð2:2Þ 2. properties of impacting particles and ﬂow environment. were calculated from a relationship derived by least square ﬁt to experimental data. complexity has been increased further in deriving these parameters. Operating experience data on piping failures due to ð22bÞþ is the activity of bth ferrous ion complex. which is dependent on solution chemistry. The action of erosion may cause removal of passive corrosion ﬁlm thereby removing the ability of the material to withstand corrosion. which depend on ﬁeld experience for some of the factors involved. the so called synergistic effect.0. 1. The magnetite layer is porous and slightly soluble in water. The chemical equation describing this process is Fig. Since these parameters are interrelated. Obviously. Numerous empirical and semi-empirical models have been developed. 2. If the pH of the water can be raised to 9. The main challenge is to develop a complete mathematical model for erosion corrosion rate which could effectively and accurately predict the rate. According to Sweeton-Baes experiments [6]. [3 –5].188 erosion corrosion from Indian PHWRs are very limited and not sufﬁcient in suggesting the failure frequency of piping due to this mechanism. 2. this can be easily interpreted as crack depth growth rate which can be used in limit state functions to predict the failure probability.

when ﬂow is developing in the downstream DO2 ¼ 7:4 £ 1028 Temp ð2:6 £ 18Þ0:5 =ð290Þ0:6 d ¼ diameter of the pipe U ¼ ﬂow velocity n ¼ kinematic viscosity Cs : Surface concentration ¼ ¼ ð 2 :6 Þ X X ð22bÞþ ½FeðOHÞb =3 Kb ½Hþ ð22bÞ P1 H2 Â expð22FE=3RT Þ F ¼ faradays constant ¼ 96.54. The model accounts for state . It has been discussed that the rate of erosion corrosion is dependent on two factors (i) oxide dissolution and (ii) mass transfer based on the oxide dissolution. several key variables are identiﬁed that inﬂuence the rate of attack [6]: † † † † † † Fluid velocity Fluid pH-level Fluid oxygen content Fluid temperature Component geometry Component chromium. 2. This Markov modeling technique starts with a representation of ‘piping segment’ in a set of discrete and mutually exclusive states [3 – 5].. These models can predict the rate of E/C with considerable accuracy. Markov model for incorporating effects of ISI and degradation mechanisms 3. The kinetics of erosion corrosion is governed by two steps that operate in series. The basic form of Markov model is presented in Fig. The ﬁrst step is the kinetic rate of oxide dissolution. At any instant of time. Empirical models are formulated. M.580 cal/mol R0 ¼ 9:55 £ 1032 atoms=cm2 s Temp ¼ temperature in K R ¼ universal gas constant ¼ 2 cal/mol/K.3. The second step involved is the estimation of mass transfer limited rate RMT . This model consists of four states of pipe segment reﬂecting the progressive stage of pipe failure mechanism: the state with no ﬂaw. Steady state model for erosion corrosion The erosion corrosion of carbon steel in water of low dissolved oxygen content occurs mainly due to ﬂow assisted dissolution of normally protective magnetite ﬁlm that forms on the surface. bends etc. Rk : This rate can be expected to be governed by an Arrhenius relationship given by: Rk ¼ R0 expð2Ek =RTempÞ ð 2 :3 Þ where Ek ¼ activation energy ¼ 31. As seen from this model pipe leaks and ruptures are permitted to occur directly from the ﬂaw or leak state. development of ﬂaws or detectable damage.189 rate has been focused in identiﬁcation of regimes of behavior of this mechanism using quantitative technique. the existence of ﬂaws. which considers all the variables responsible for erosion corrosion to happen. from most to least susceptible to erosion-corrosion is very complicated. and repair strategies that can reduce the probability that failure occurs or the failure will progress to rupture.1. As a result of large number of experimental works conducted. the system is permitted to change state in accordance with whatever competing processes are appropriate for that plant state.e. i. RMT ¼ K ðCs 2 Cb Þ ð 2 :4 Þ where K : mass transfer coefficient ¼ ðDO2 =dÞ0:0791ðUd =nÞx Â ðn=DO2 Þ0:335 ð 2 :5 Þ ð 2 :8 Þ This rate can be used in models for limit state functions of pipe failure for estimating the failure probability.67. 2. and repair of damage prior to progression of failure mechanism to rupture. detection. proposed a steady state model for erosion corrosion of feed water piping [6]. 3. Discrete state Markov model for pipe failures The objective of Markov modeling approach is to explicitly model the interactions between degradation mechanisms and the inspection. leaks. when ﬂow is fully turbulent ¼ 0. It depends on the interaction of several variables with weighing factors applied to each of the variables. In this application of Markov model the state refers to various degrees of piping system degradation or repairs. Abdulsalem. The processes that can create a state change are failure mechanisms operating on the pipe and process of inspecting or detecting ﬂaws and leaks. x ¼ 0:86 in straight pipes ¼ 0. or ruptures. This predictive capability helps to avoid nonproductive inspection efforts. the occurrence of leaks and occurrence of pipe ruptures.400 C mol21 E ¼ potential in equilibrium system Cb ¼ a given bulk concentration Total erosion corrosion rate can be deﬁned as by 1 21 21 Rate ¼ ðR2 K þ RMT Þ ð 2 :7 Þ The decision concerning the prioritisation of various classes of piping components such as elbows. copper and molybdenum content.

its values are between 0. Assuming the plant life of 40 years. The repair rates for ﬂaws and leaks are estimated based on the characteristics of inspection and mean time to repair ﬂaws and leak upon detection. limit state functions. but represents a stage in which remaining pipe wall thickness is 0:45 £ t to 0:2 £ t (pipe wall thickness).9) 3. For most Non Destructive Examination.190 Fig. in which ﬂaw is less than 0:125 £ t. f represents transition rate from state S. The Markov model diagram describes the failure and inspection processes as discrete state-continuous time problem. 2. Markov model for pipe elements with in-service inspection and leak detection. These equations are based on the assumption that the probability of transition from one state to another is proportional to transition rates indicated on the diagrams and there is no memory of how current state is arrived at. 0:45 £ t.84 and 0. which is deﬁned as occurrence of ﬂaw. So. its typically 10 years for nuclear power plants TR ¼ mean time to repair once detected. The second limit state function is formulated to estimate the transition rate lf : lf represents transition rate from state F. i. 200 h. based on strength and resistance. T Þ ¼ 0:45 £ t 2 ðd þ rate £ T Þ d ¼ undetected ﬂaw ¼ 0:125 £ t: T ¼ time of inspection usually 10 years. to state F in which ﬂaw is 0:45 £ t: The limit state function can be deﬁned as LSF1ðd. there is an opportunity for inspection and repair to account for in-service inspection program that search for signs of degradation prior to the occurrence of pipe failures. are used. state probabilities are computed for the plant life. 0:8 £ t: The LSF ð3:3Þ v ¼ Pf1 PFD =ðTI þ TR Þ ð 3 :1 Þ Pf1 ¼ probability that piping element with a ﬂaw will be inspected per inspection interval. The value will be 1 if it is in the inspection program or else it will be 0. f. lf rL and rf . PFD ¼ probability that a ﬂaw will be detected given this element is inspected.e. The occurrence rates for ﬂaw.95. v TI ¼ mean time between inspections for ﬂaw. leaks and ruptures are determined from limit state function formulation. This is the reliability of inspection program and equivalent to Probability of Detection. Here the Leak stage L does not indicate actual leak.2. The ﬁrst limit state function is deﬁned as the difference between the pipeline wall thickness t and depth of corrosion defect. Inspect and repair ﬂaw rate. to the leak state L. The Markov model can be solved by setting up differential equations for different states and ﬁnding the associated time dependent state probabilities. Repair rate m ¼ PLD =ðTI þ TR Þ ð3:2Þ PLD ¼ probability that leak in the element will be detected per detection period (Typically assumed as 0. Piping failure probability estimation using FORM To determine the different transition rates f. is in order of days. dependent failure and rupture processes and two repair processes. . Once a ﬂaw occurs.e. This limit state function describes the state of depth of the corrosion defects with a depth close to their maximum allowable depth before repair could be carried out that is 85% of the nominal pipe wall thickness ð0:45 £ tÞ: The probability that pipe fall thickness reduces to 0:45 £ t will occur at a rate. which is already crossed the detectable range i.

T ¼ time of inspection usually 10 years. in a PH of 10. The feeder pipe considered in this case study is made of carbon steel A106GrB.1. This feeder is subjected to a ﬂow velocity ðU Þ of 1500 cm/s. which represents the failure probability over the entire life of the plant. which is the mean value for the rate. R from the ﬂaw state. pH. The third limit state function is deﬁned as difference between pipe line failure pressure Pf and pipeline operating pressure Pop [2].051 mm/year. over a period of 40 years. the rate of erosion corrosion was found to be 0. UTS ¼ ultimate tensile strength YS ¼ yield strength of the pipe material. LðT Þ ¼ axial length of the corrosion defect dðT Þ ¼ the depth of corrosion. for calculation of rL both the failure pressure model of Modiﬁed B31G and Shell 92 are used. a different limit state function needs to be formulated.2 1500 cm/s 70 mm 0.2 at a temperature.48 mm 0. typically 40 years. In this case. Pf is deﬁned as [2]: ! 1 2 0:85 dðtT Þ 2ðYS þ 68:95Þt Pf ¼ D 1 2 0:85 dðtT Þ M 21 LðT Þ ﬃ . For this case.051 mm/year Variance 25 K 0. Corrosion rate estimation ð 3 :7 Þ The PHWR outlet feeder piping system is taken as a typical case study. Similarly. For the scope of this paper. According to modiﬁed B31G model.5 50 cm/s 1. n is taken as 0. two models namely modiﬁed B31G and Shell 92 are addressed. the failure pressure can be deﬁned as [2]: ! 1 2 dðtT Þ 1:8UTSt Pf ¼ ð 3 :9 Þ D 1 2 dðtT Þ M 21 where sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ LðT Þ2 M ¼ 1 þ 0:805 Dt D ¼ out side diameter of the pipe. The state transition rate rL is obtained by dividing the probability obtained from COMREL by designed plant life time.5 mm.3. The case study attempts to determine the erosion corrosion rate for one such feeder pipe. it has been found that Shell -92 model gives higher probabilities of failure while modiﬁed B31G gives smaller estimate. U . Case study 4. Corrosion rate ¼ f ðT . There are 306 number of small diameter pipes of diameter ranging from 40 to 70 mm and length 2 –22 m that connects outlet header to the steam generator. The kinematic viscosity. the failure probability is found out by considering the fact that the state transition is occurring from state L to state R which is the rupture stage.0179 cm2/s. The variance of the rate can be calculated by using Taylor series expansion. t ¼ thickness of the pipe. For longer service periods. 50 Dt 2 Both failure pressure models are used to calculate the rupture frequency from ﬂaw stage. The corrosion depth for this case is computed as dðT Þ for this case ¼ 0:8 £ t þ rate £ T : ð3:12Þ Normal distribution has been assumed for load and resistance variables. 280 8C.191 for this case would be LSF2 ¼ 0:8 £ t 2 ð0:45 £ t þ rate £ T Þ ð 3 :4 Þ There is a probability for the piping reaching directly the rupture state. different models are available. F.4 for G ¼ 0:893 pﬃﬃﬃ ð 3 :6 Þ Dt where sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ LðT Þ2 LðT Þ2 2 0:003375 2 2 M ¼ 1 þ 0:6275 Dt D t for L # 50 Dt LðT Þ2 þ 3 :3 Dt L2 . So the failure frequency or transition rate rf is found out by dividing this probability by designed plant life time.015 mm/year M ¼ 0:032 for ð 3 :8 Þ According to Shell-92. with a diameter ðdÞ of 70 mm and thickness ðtÞ of 6. L ¼ length of corrosion. because of encountering the failure pressure in the ﬂaw state. Following the methodology described in Section 2. The rupture stage from ﬂaw stage is identiﬁed when the nominal wall thickness is 0:55 £ t: ð3:10Þ . 4. the depth of corrosion is deﬁned as dðT Þ ¼ 0:45 £ t þ rate £ T ð3:11Þ For determining failure pressure. The results are obtained from software COMREL [8]. dÞ Table 1 Parameters mean values and variances Parameters Temperature pH Velocity Diameter Rate Mean 553 K 10. LSF3ðPf Þ ¼ Pf 2 Pop ð 3 :5 Þ For this case.

3 –6 present the variation of erosion-corrosion rate with parameters such as ﬂow velocity. pH. The developed model can be simulated to get optimum design parameters.015 0. Table 1 presents the mean and variance value calculated for the corrosion rate depending on the mean and variance of speciﬁc parameters. STUREL.7 40 300 Variance 25 0. Modiﬁed B31G estimates are considered for rf and rl in Markov model.051 8. 5. has been used to estimate the failure probabilities Fig. Piping failure probability estimation After estimating the corrosion rate. Table 2 presents mean and variance values for various parameters appearing in the limit state functions. E/C rate vs.192 Fig. 4.9 Fig. respectively. E/C rate vs. The solutions obtained from COMREL module of STUREL are used to estimate the various transition rates. ð 4 :1 Þ It has been assumed that all the process parameters are normally distributed. 2 2 2 2 srate ¼ ð›f =›T Þ2 sT þ ð›f =›pHÞ2 spH þ ð›f =›U Þ2 sU 2 þ ð›f =›dÞ2 sd Fig. as shown in Table 4. 3.2. E/C rate vs. 6. 2. E/C rate vs.5 0. by considering the process variables of interest as the ﬁxed parameters and adjusting the others. PH and diameter. from the limit state functions. Depending on our deﬁnition of failure. ﬂow velocity. These transition rates are applied on Markov model shown in Fig. 4. state probability of either the leak state or the rupture state. The failure frequency of Table 2 Parameters for failure pressure model with mean and variance Parameters Yield strength (MPa) Thickness of the pipe (mm) Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) Outer diameter of the pipe (mm) Rate of erosion corrosion (mm/year) Load (MPa) Time (year) Length of defect (mm) Mean values 358 7 455 72 0.0 [9] is used for determining the various state probabilities in the Markov model. The software package for structural reliability analysis. which are presented in Table 3. Software MKV 3. diameter. can be considered as failure probability of the feeder.148 32 1. temperature. it has to be applied in the suitable limit state function to estimate the failure probability. temperature. . Figs.

Conclusions The paper has considered the Abdulsalam model for estimation of erosion-corrosion rate. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2002. [9] MKV 3. EPRI Revised Risk-Informed In-Service Inspection Evaluation Procedure. these estimates should be veriﬁed against operating experience.147 £ 1027 Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their critical review and constructive suggestions to improve the quality and readability of this paper. [5] Gosselin. Corrosion 1992. since it incorporates the effect of repair and inspection works in the pipeline failure frequency. www.de. 5. thickness of the pipe. Steady-state model for erosion—corrosion of feed water piping. Proceedings of ICONE 5. if available. Corrosion of CANDU outlet feeder pipe.112 £ 1026 1. Proceedings of ICONE 8. The sensitivity of the failure frequencies increases with increased pipeline elapsed life. then special care must be taken in characterizing accurately the coefﬁcients of variation of the load and resistance parameters. [7] TR-112657. Quantitative assessment of a risk informed inspection strategy for BWR weld overlays. Nevertheless. www. Chelugel EL.79:77. Boston. Revision B-A. Mitman J.strurel.362 £ 1023 9.812 £ 1024 2.0.115 £ 1027 0. operating pressure. it is recommended to ﬁnd the state probabilities using MARKOV model. AECL 11965 1999. Instead of applying directly the probabilities obtained from limit state function in RI-ISI evaluation.435 £ 1025 0. [3] Fleming KN.77 £ 1022 LSF method LSF-1 LSF-2 LSF-3: modiﬁed B31G LSF-3: Shell-92 LSF-3: modiﬁed B31G LSF-3: Shell-92 f lf rf rl parameters are assumed here to be normally distributed. licensed software for Structural Reliability Analysis. Evaluation of pipe failure potential via degradation mechanism assessment. Proc ASME Pressure Vessels Piping Conf. Mitman J. Application of markov models and service data to evaluate the inﬂuence of inspection on pipe rupture frequencies. 1997. Table 4 State probabilities from MKV 3.com. Gosselin S. France.9956 4. MD.303 £ 1027 3. August 1–5 1999. [8] STRUREL.isograph. Markov model also allows formulating a proper inspection program and period depending on the operating condition of the plant at any given time. Stanley JT. which value can be further employed in RI-ISI for determining its inspection category [7] for In-Service Inspection. References [1] Burnill KA. 2000. Baltimore. December 1999. SR. material yield strength. [2] Caleyo F. Fleming KN. May 26–30. If the reduction in pipeline safety is assumed for long elapsed time. and pipeline diameter. before employing in such application. A study on reliability assessment methodology for pipelines with active corrosion defects. but in actual practice this may not be the case. [4] Fleming KN. [6] Abdulsalam M.0 States Success (S) Flaw (F) Leak (L) Rupture (R) State probability 0. The failure pressure models considered here to deﬁne the LSF lead to similar failure probabilities for short pipeline service periods. the COMREL module has the facility to account for any kind of distribution. The following priority scheme must be used for determining the actual coefﬁcient of variation: rate of corrosion.48:587. Various .486 £ 1022 8. Fifth International Conference on Nuclear Engineering. April 2–6. Nice.193 Table 3 Transition rates obtained from COMREL modules Parameters Values (/year) 3. However. demo version for Markov model solutions. the feeder can be estimated by dividing this probability by the design life of the component.

- reliability of distributed systemUploaded byYogesh Mishra
- SE-2-7Uploaded byRestoration2010
- chapter1e_201108Uploaded byAjay Malik
- Boiler Life AvailabilityUploaded byOkpala A
- IPC2012-90450Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- 0 2.3.2 Seleccion Del ProcesoUploaded bykokekanon
- 4. EEE-IJEEER-Computational Methods for - C v MohanUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- INSP-866-PSR.pdfUploaded byVajid Madathil
- Reliabiliy DesignUploaded bytheresa.painter
- Haraburda Jan FebUploaded byMohammed Maher
- 1-s2.0-S095183201400297X-mainUploaded byozakyus
- 2008 RAMS TOCUploaded byJohn R Walsh
- SMRP Solutions 2018 Jan-FebUploaded byAnonymous mOWVNT0gwk
- Front MatterUploaded byAnas Aminullah
- Software EngineeringUploaded byJamesMaina
- BTEC HNDs Research ProjectUploaded bykillu87
- Prima Iman Pangestu – CV.pdfUploaded byFebri Ramdani
- final reportUploaded byapi-252059697
- Maintenance and Reliability Improvement LowResUploaded byrogeriongurgel
- IDC Rethink Your B2B Integration StrategyUploaded bySaiid Saber
- Syllabus_ME421_spring2017.pdfUploaded bypeter vu
- 1-s2.0-S2212827114005101-mainUploaded byBagus Krisviandik
- repository1_publication6512_5_2140Uploaded byhameed66
- Leaflet - Step-A - 2011 - EnUploaded bysdiaman
- RGB Led Controlled By ATtiny85Uploaded byanodicprotect5
- RelexWeibullUploaded byutopial2006
- Core 3Uploaded byBambang Murtjahjanto
- Corrosion Short Courses_ API 573 Inspection of Fired Boilers and HeatersUploaded byAnonymous yI9YpMR2
- Henchin Energy Audits 1Jun09Uploaded byAdam Qin
- IEEE 2009_Reliability Evaluation of Composite Power Systems Using Markov Cut-Set MethodUploaded bySheikh.H

- IITB Course Dec04Uploaded byAnkush Varshney
- MohdAznanShukriMohamedSafianKPFKA2006TTTTOCUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Royal RajasthanUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Piping Stress-Interview QuestionsUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Integrity Management of Subsea PipelineUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Best Management Practices: Mitigation of Internal Corrosion in Oil Effluent Pipeline SystemsUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Joint Coating 11.02.13Uploaded byAnkush Varshney
- GearUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Generation of ComputersUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Hdd HandbookUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- Unified Modeling LanguageUploaded byAnkush Varshney
- BiodieselUploaded byAnkush Varshney