Proposed Statistical Model for Corrosion Failure Prediction and L

© All Rights Reserved

25 views

Proposed Statistical Model for Corrosion Failure Prediction and L

© All Rights Reserved

- Probe Ng Analysis Nessus
- Computer Simulation]
- 3.Case Study Labuan Pipeline Installation Engineering
- INTRODUCTION TO HOOK-UP & COMMISSIONING
- App.A_Detection and estimation in additive Gaussian noise.pdf
- Chapter14.Ans
- Numerical Modeling of Flow Processes Inside Geothermal Wells
- [EXE] Fractal Dimension of Wind Speed Time Series
- trret
- 05 Pipeline Systems Approach
- Problem Set 1
- Chapter 02 Slides
- Arena仿真与建模
- IPC2012-90184
- Ebus504 Handbook Hsismail 201011
- PLS Integration
- Gas Detector Location
- 2012 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLPj
- Simulations
- Report_ORS_Workshop_BurkinaFaso_January2010.pdf

You are on page 1of 21

IdeaExchange@UAkron

Honors Research Projects

College

Spring 2015

Prediction and Lifetime Extension of Pipelines

Jessica Y. Ripple

jyr2@zips.uakron.edu

Recommended Citation

Ripple, Jessica Y., "Proposed Statistical Model for Corrosion Failure Prediction and Lifetime Extension of Pipelines" (2015). Honors

Research Projects. Paper 101.

This Honors Research Project is brought to you for free and open access by the The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at

IdeaExchange@UAkron. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron.

For more information, please contact mjon@uakron.edu. The University of Akron is Ohios Polytechnic University (http://www.uakron.edu/).

PROPOSED STATISTICAL

MODEL FOR CORROSION

FAILURE PREDICTION AND

LIFETIME EXTENSION OF

PIPELINES

Jessica Ripple

April 21, 2015

Honors College Research Project

Ripple 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 5

General Corrosion ....................................................................................................................... 5

Oil Pipeline Corrosion ................................................................................................................ 5

Corrosion Models........................................................................................................................ 6

Model Discussion............................................................................................................................ 8

Data Input.................................................................................................................................... 8

Monte Carlo Simulation.............................................................................................................. 9

Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................... 13

Recommendations and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 17

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 17

References ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Ripple 2

Executive Summary

Corrosion is an unavoidable global issue that has serious safety and environmental

consequences if left unmitigated. Currently, the majority of methods used to address corrosion

are reactive in nature, meaning that industries are responding to leaks, spills, and catastrophes

after they have already occurred. Ideally, the asset owners of the corroding infrastructure and

equipment should use predictive modeling to take proactive measures before a corrosion induced

risk becomes a danger to society.

This project focuses primarily on internal pipeline corrosion. The US has hundreds of

thousands of miles worth of pipelines currently in operation. These pipelines are often

transporting hazardous materials, such as natural gas and crude oil. To protect society and the

environment from loss of containment, the US Department of Transportation requires most

pipelines to be analyzed for internal corrosion every five years using an in-line inspection (ILI)

tool.

The intended audience for this model are pipeline asset owners and operators. The goal of

this project was to develop a user-friendly model that allows a user to analyze the data

collected from the ILI tool. The user can choose to accept the default analysis options or easily

make adjustments to tailor the results to their data.

This report presents the results from developing a predictive model that estimates the

probability of failure of a pipeline. The model utilizes data collected with an in-line inspection

tool to generate a Monte Carlo simulation based on a desired statistical distribution. The results

of the Monte Carlo simulation provide the user with the probability of failure that each anomaly

on the pipeline presents over a specific time period. Using these probabilities, the model

conducts an economic analysis to recommend an optimal repair schedule.

Going forward, this model can be improved by adding new distributions, which will

allow the data to be categorized more accurately and new predictive equations, which permits the

user to adjust how conservative the results should be. Also, the model would greatly benefit from

a second set of ILI data of the same pipeline to validate the calculated results.

Ripple 3

Introduction

The target audience for this research project is oil and gas pipeline operators, owners, or

other responsible parties. The final product, a computer model, utilizes raw industry data,

accepted industry standards, statistical analysis, and economical evaluations to recommend

optimal mitigation methods and scheduling. As with any model, the results are only as accurate

as the data and engineering judgement that is input.

Figure 1 shows the main process steps the model utilizes. The raw data comes from inline inspection (ILI) tools, also known as smart pigs, and consists of wall thickness and

anomaly width and depth. An anomaly is considered to be any defect in the pipe internal surface.

Smart pigs have the ability to catalog hundreds of kilometers worth of pipeline data. Within the

model, this data is then fit to an appropriate distribution curve, which can be chosen based on

minimizing standard error. The next step entails performing a Monte Carlo simulation to

generate probabilistic pipeline conditions. These conditions are individually assessed which

provides a wide range of operating pressure estimates. Once the pipeline operation has been

simulated over a specified range of time, an economic analysis can be performed which will

make recommendations based on specified costs of failure and repair. The final output of the

model includes a recommended year of repair at each specific anomaly location and the

economic value of risk avoided by performing said repair.

Every step is completed independently and requires various amounts of user inputs. The

overarching idea for this model is to allow the user to be a detailed or simplistic as he or she

prefers. The model has default settings for the steps but has the flexibility for tailoring at any

point.

1. Raw Data

Input

2. Data

Distribution

Fitting

3. Monte

Carlo

Simulation

4. Operating

Pressure

Estimation

5. Economic

Analysis

Ripple 4

Currently, the main limitations of the model include the inability to distinguish between

internal corrosion and erosion as well as the inability to evaluate external corrosion. Also, the

model does not differentiate a failure as either a leak or a rupture. Lastly, the model assumes a

constant corrosion rate with time. It cannot predict a sudden acceleration in corrosion. However,

frequent and thorough data collection should be able to give an indication of a step change in the

corrosion rate.

The data presented in this report is not meant to be extrapolated to represent other

pipelines. The purpose of displaying and analyzing the data in this report is to showcase the

types of analyses that the model can perform.

Ripple 5

Background

General Corrosion

Corrosion is simply defined as the degradation of a material due to a reaction with its

environment (1). A wide variety of materials can fall victim to corrosion, including metals,

polymers, and ceramics. Additionally, these materials can undergo various forms of corrosion,

most often simultaneously (2). Figure 2 displays the corrosion mechanism using a basic

electrochemical cell schematic (2). Corrosion occurs due to the oxidation reaction taking place at

the anode. The loss of electrons at the anode is balanced by the reduction reaction occurring at

the cathode. Depending on the chemical concentration and properties of the environment (shown

as the electrolyte in Figure 2), the corrosion rate may be almost negligible (less than 1 mpy) or

very severe (greater than 200 mpy) (3).

Unmitigated corrosion has significant safety, environmental, and economic

consequences on a global scale. In 2002, a comprehensive study determined the total direct costs

of corrosion in a wide variety of industry sectors in the United States totaled $276 billion (4). To

combat corrosion, several mitigation strategies are available. The most common include material

selection, coatings, inhibitors, and cathodic protection (5).

Oil Pipeline Corrosion

For this specific project, the primary focus was of internal corrosion of oil pipelines in the

United States. Crude oil itself is not corrosive. Instead, the corrosion is caused by carbon dioxide

(CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and especially water (6). At high velocities, the water will remain

entrained in the crude oil and will not be able to settle out and cause corrosion (7). However, at

lower velocities, there is a greater risk of two phase flow and thus corrosion can occur in the

water phase. Light crude oils containing water are at a higher risk due to the greater difference in

Ripple 6

density to water (7). Therefore, as refineries are forced to run heavier crudes over time, the crude

oil pipelines will actually decrease their risk of corrosion.

Today, there are limits in place on water concentration in transporting crude oil in

pipelines. In 2012, the length of U.S. oil pipelines was approximately 152,000 miles (8). For

about 90% of hazardous liquid pipelines, pipeline operators have the option of using a smart

pig to collect integrity data (9). Figure 3 illustrates a smart pig created by Nord Stream which

uses magnetic flux technology, which is one of the most common methods (10). These devices

are capable of detecting the location of pipeline defects such as wall thinning, mechanical

damage, material defects, and cracks (9). The data, often referred to as in-line inspection or ILI

data, was the primary input to the developed model. The United States Department of

Transportation requires pipeline owners to complete a smart pig run every five years, although it

is common for them to be performed even more frequently (11).

Corrosion Models

Currently in industry, it is common to use one of the previously developed deterministic

models to estimate the service lifetime before corrosion induced pipeline failure. Figure 4

compares the pipeline failure pressure as a function of defect length using different models (12).

The models all require similar information (anomaly length and depth, pipe thickness, etc.) to

calculate the failure pressure. For the purpose of this model, the Modified B31G was used since

it is a standard produced by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and is less

conservative than the original B31G model (13). The ASME Modified B31G method was

primarily developed on older, lower strength steels while some of the newer models, including

the DNV-99 method, were developed based on modern pipeline materials (14).

Ripple 7

Figure 4. Pipeline failure pressure vs. defect length for various models.

A Level 1 Modified B31G evaluation was conducted, based on the steps outlined in the

ASME Technical Standard document (13). Equation 1 shows the formula used to calculate the

failure pressure for the model, where YS is yield strength, t is the pipe thickness, d(T) is the

anomaly depth at time T, L(T) is the anomaly length at time T, and D is pipe diameter (12). This

equation assumes a flow stress expression appropriate for a material with specified minimum

yield strengths below 483 MPa and operating temperatures below 120C (13).

Equation 1:

.

.

.

! , " #1 % 0.6275

+,

. 0.003375

+,0

- -

Ripple 8

Model Discussion

Data Input

The ILI data used to develop this model spanned 100 kilometers of industrial pipeline.

The source of this pipeline data cannot be identified due to confidentiality, although it was

provided to the University of Akron with the intention of creating a predictive model. It is worth

noting that only the raw data points were provided. Any subsequent analyses, statistical

modeling, or calculations were completed as part of this research project.

Within the 100 kilometers of data, over 3,400 anomalies were documented. Figure 5

displays the frequency of the data utilized in the model. This analysis was carried out Potential

outliers were not removed because these sites likely represent spots of local accelerated

corrosion which was considered important to keep in the model. Corrosion rates were determined

based on the assumption that the pipe had been corroding for 10 years. Ideally, data from two

separate ILI audits would be used to estimate corrosion rates more accurately.

Figure 6 shows the probability density function (PDF) curves that were necessary for

running the model. The corrosion rate is shown on the left while the longitudinal growth rate is

shown on the right. These distribution curves are required for performing the Monte Carlo

simulation. Figure 7 shows an example of how the distribution curves were chosen for the

longitudinal growth rate. The fit that yielded the lowest standard error was selected to represent

the data shape. Therefore, the corrosion rate was fit to a normal distribution curve while the

longitudinal growth rate was fit to a lognormal distribution curve.

Ripple 9

model.

Figure 6.. Probability density function curves used in the model

Monte Carlo Simulation

Once the raw data is entered and the appropriate distribution curve parameters are

evaluated, the probability of failure over time for each anomaly location is calculated via the

Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) process. The Monte Carlo simulation is defined as a numerical

Ripple 10

experimentation technique to obtain the statistics of the output variables of a system computation

model, given the statistics of the input variables (15). Figure 8 outlines the individual steps

required to complete a MCS. A random number generator was used in Step 1. This random

number was associated with a corrosion and anomaly longitudinal growth rate using the inverse

normal and lognormal functions, respectively. A MCS simulation including 1000 trials was

performed for each specific anomaly location. Therefore, the rate of corrosion depth and

longitudinal growth were statistical inputs to the simulation while the anomaly length and depth

were not. For each anomaly, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the calculated failure

pressure was plotted. The CDF is defined by NIST as the probability that the variable takes a

value less than or equal to x (16). For this model, the variable is the pressure calculated using

Equation 1 and x is the pipeline operating pressure. Therefore, the failure probability is found

by plotting the CDF and finding the probability that corresponds to the pipeline operating

pressure, as shown in Figure 10. The model was set up on the basis for 15 years prediction.

0 and 1

optimal distribution arameters that

correspond to the random number

repetitions (n = 1000)

function (CDF)

with a value of interest represents the

probability of occurrence

Figure 8. Calculation steps of a MCS process.

Ripple 11

Figure 9 shows CDF equations for distributions that are commonly seen in corrosion

data (17), (18), (19), (20).. When a random number is selected in Step 1 of the MCS process,

proces it

represents a probability, labeled p. The desired variable (whether it be corrosion rate, anomaly

length, etc.) is then calculated by solving for the x value that corresponds to a specific value of p.

Inverse distribution equations are commonly available in software, including Microsoft Excel

and MATLAB. The inverse distr

distribution

ibution equations require the parameters (such as the average

and standard deviation) that are shown below.

Normal

^2/2

2 ^2

:standard deviation, :average

^2/2

2 ^2 /

1. ^. / ^

Weibull

:scale

Figure 9.. Commonly used distributions and their respective cumulative distribution functions.

Figure 10 shows the MCS output for a singular anomaly after 15 years of predicted

corrosion. The operating pressure of the line is 5.6 MPa, which intersects the CDF curve at

approximately 71%.

1%. From this data, the conclusion is that after 15 years, the probability of this

particular anomaly corroding to the point of failure is 71%.

Ripple 12

pip

start.

Figure 10. Monte Carlo simulation for a single anomaly located at 82,190 m from pipeline

To draw conclusions about the anomaly over time, the average calculated pressure was

used. Figure 11 shows the range of pressures calculated and the overall

rall probability of failure per

year for the same anomaly considered in Figure 10. The data bars correspond to the maximum

and minimum pressures that were calculated in the MCS. At year 4, the minimum calculated

pressure begins to extend below the pipeline operating pressure. This results in some amount of

failure probability, as shown inn the graph on the right.

Figure 11.. Estimated pressure and probability of failure prediction for singular anomaly located

at 82,190 m from pipeline start.

Ripple 13

Lastly, Figure 12 illustrates how the individual anomaly analyses were combined to

produce a failure probability snapshot of the bulk pipeline after 15 years of predicted

corrosion. The percentages represent the probability of failure at each specific location. While

this image was created manually using MATLAB, the intention is to have the simulation

generate all images automatically.

Economic Analysis

There are many ways of accounting for costs associated with corrosion and how to

account for these savings when employing mitigation strategies. Previous studies on costs were

evaluated from the following perspectives: the cost to the economy of a nation and the cost of

selected corrosion control measures (17). Figure 13 lists some of the costs typically associated

with corrosion (17). For this project, capital and design costs were not considered since the focus

of this work is protecting existing assets. Thus, the economic analysis focused on the trade-off

between control costs (i.e. repairing the anomaly, using inhibitors) and associated costs (i.e. loss

of containment due to pipeline failure, pipeline capacity diminished).

Ripple 14

Capital/Design

Costs

Replacement

of equipment

and buildings

Excess

capacity

Redundant

equipment

Control Costs

Maintenance

and repair

Corrosion

control

Design Costs

Materials of

construction

Corrosion

allowance

Special

processing

Associated

Costs

Loss of

product

Technical

Support

Insurance

Inventory

Initially, the base cost of repair was estimated as $10,000 and the penalty of a pipeline

failure

re was estimated as $1,000,000. To determine the optimal time for repair, each year was

analyzed separately. In each year, the cost of repair was compared to the cost of failure, which is

the product of the failure penalty and the probability of failure. If the cost of rrepair

epair was lower

than the economic risk of failure in a given yyear,

ear, it was recommended to do fix the anomaly.

anomaly

Once the model recommends a year of repair, the probability of failure of the subsequent years is

reduced to zero. For example, Figure 14 shows the total risk for each given year for a specific

anomaly and how this compares to the base cost of repair. Equation 2 shows

ws how the total risk

is calculated,, where the n subscript refers to the beginning of year n. For example, the total risk

in year 1 should be calculated using the failure probability that corresponds to year 1. In year 8,

the probability of failure increases

ases such that it becomes a greater economic risk to not repair the

anomaly as compared to repairing it. Thus, the recommendation is to repair the anomaly at year

8.

Equation 2..

Figure 14.. Cost analysis for single anomaly located at 805 m from pipeline start.

Ripple 15

Figure 15 shows the comparison of risk between repairing and not repairing the

pipelines, discounted back to the beginning of year 0.The

The risk of not repairing is the incremental

risk that is accrued as the probability of failure increases annually. The amount of risk

accumulated with repairs is the amount of proportion of the failure penalty that is accepted

before the model recommends repairing the anomaly. By optimizing repairs on an economic

basis, the

he total risk of operating the pipeline can be dramatically reduced. Other techniques, such

as adding inhibitors, have the potential to reduce the cost of risk by an even more dramatic

amount.

Equation 3 shows how the discounted total risk was calculated in Figure 15, where n is

the beginning of year n and

nd the summation is over the entire length of the pipeline. Since n is

considered from the beginning of the year, the first value of n is 2. For the case with no repairs,

Equation 3 was used as explicitly written. For the case with repairs, Equation 3 was still used

but once the anomaly was repaired

repaired, the risk for subsequent years was set to 0.

Equation 3.

Figure 15.. Discounted risk comparison of repairing vs. not repairing all pipeline anomalies over

time.

Lastly, Figure 16 compares the predicted annual cost of repairs vs. the cost of risk that is

accepted by not employing mitigation methods. Excluding year 14, the cost of repairs is always

lower than the evaluated cost of risk. Year 14 had the largest number of recommended repairs

and thus the cost of mitigation slightly exceeds the amount of risk accepted. However, as Figure

12 showed, it is very common to see anomalies that are close together. Therefore, the cost to

repair this segment of pipeline should be lower than what is predicted due to shared expenses,

such as excavating

xcavating and labor costs. Over 15 years, the economic risk that will be accrued due to

corrosion is estimated at over $41 million. By implementing the recommended repair schedule,

the pipeline is predicted to avoid $13.5 million in risk over 15 years.

Ripple 16

ssociated with not repairing all pipeline anomalies vs. the annual cost for

Figure 16. Risk associated

repairs.

Ripple 17

Recommendations and Conclusions

Recommendations

While the model is performing as intended, the following recommendations would be

beneficial to its future users:

Test the predictions of this model by acquiring a second set of ILI data of the same

pipeline.

Diversify the distributions available for fitting the ILI data.

Include analysis of field data such as the effects of product chemistry, water

concentration, and solids content on growth rates.

Apply the same methodology used in this work for external corrosion.

Determine methods to estimate the effects of external corrosion mitigation.

Add additional failure estimation models (such as the Shell or DNV-99) as a comparison

to the Modified B31G.

Have model display not only the anomaly locations along the pipeline but also their

orientation within it.

Conclusions

This model analyzes federally mandated data for pipeline owners by combining

distribution fitting techniques, statistical analysis, and an economic evaluation. The model has

been constructed to permit easy modifications which allow the user to make the data analysis as

simple or as complicated as desired. Based on the specific pipeline data analyzed and estimated

repair costs, it is predicted that approximately $13.5 million dollars of risk can be avoided by

implementing an optimized repair schedule for the entire pipeline over 15 years. Based on the

model output, the majority of repairs should take place between years 13-15. While the model

still requires sound engineering judgement, the results can still be used to drive management and

budgetary decisions. Also, as heavier crudes become more popular and general corrosion

awareness increases, it is predicted that the number of anomalies per pipeline will decrease over

time.

Ripple 18

References

1. NASA. Fundamentals of Corrosion and Corrosion Control.

http://corrosion.ksc.nasa.gov/corr_fundamentals.htm (accessed March 23, 2015).

2. NACE International. Corrosion Basics. https://www.nace.org/Corrosion-Central/Corrosion101/Corrosion-Basics/ (accessed March 23, 2015).

3. Callister, W. D.; Rethwisch, D. G. Material science and engineering: An introduction, 8th

ed.; Wiley & Sons: New York, 2010.

4. Koch, G. ; Brongers, , M. ; Thompson, N. ; Virmani, P.; Payer, J.. Corrosion costs and

preventive strategies in the United States; U.S. Federal Highway Administration: McLean,

2002.

5. ASM International. Corrosion: Understanding the Basics; ASM International: Materials

Park, 2000.

6. Nyborg, R. Controlling internal corrosion in oil and gas pipelines. Business Briefing:

Exploration and Production: The Oil and Gas Review 2005, No. 2, 70-74.

7. Larson, K. R. Managing Corrosion of Pipelines that Transport Crude Oils. Materials

Performance 2013, 52 (5), 28-35.

8. United States Department of Transportation. U.S. Oil and Gas Pipeline Mileage.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_

statistics/html/table_01_10.html (accessed March 23, 2015).

9. U.S. Department of Transportation. The Changing Face of Transportation; Bureau of

Transportation Statistics: Washington DC, 2000.

10. Nord Stream. Intelligent PIG. http://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/images/intelligentpig-3467/?page=3 (accessed March 23, 2015).

11. Alyeska Pipe. Pigging the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/perp/response/sum_fy11/110108301/factsheets/fact_Pigging.pdf

(accessed March 23 , 2015).

12. Caleyo, F.; Gonzalez, J. L.; Hallen, J. M. A study on the reliability assessment

methodology for pipelines with active corrosion defects. International Journal of Pressure

Vessels and Piping 2002, No. 79, 77-86.

13. ASME. Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines; Industry

Standard; ASME: New York, 2009.

14. Mustaffa, Z. Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion. In

Developments in Corrosion Protection; Aliofkhazraei, M., Ed.; Intech, 2014; pp 681-696.

15. Mahadevan, S. Monte Carlo Simulation. In Reliability-Based Mechanical Design; Cruse,

T. A., Ed.; Marcel Dekker, INC. : New York, 1997; p 123.

16. NIST. Related Distributions.

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda362.htm (accessed April 15,

2015).

Ripple 19

17. Kruger, J. Cost of Metallic Corrosion. In Uhlig's Corrosion Handbook, 3rd ed.; Revie, R.

W., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Ottawa, 2011; pp 15-17.

18. MathWorks. Normal inverse cumulative distribution function.

http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/norminv.html (accessed April 20, 2015).

19. MathWorks. Lognormal inverse cumulative distribution function.

http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/logninv.html (accessed April 20, 2015).

20. MathWorks. Weibull inverse cumulative distribution function.

http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/wblinv.html (accessed April 20, 2015).

- Probe Ng Analysis NessusUploaded byviswanathyakkala
- Computer Simulation]Uploaded bycvmgreat
- 3.Case Study Labuan Pipeline Installation EngineeringUploaded byjohariak
- INTRODUCTION TO HOOK-UP & COMMISSIONINGUploaded byHazwan Jamhuri
- App.A_Detection and estimation in additive Gaussian noise.pdfUploaded byLê Dương Long
- Chapter14.AnsUploaded byBlasta45
- Numerical Modeling of Flow Processes Inside Geothermal WellsUploaded byFabricetoussaint
- [EXE] Fractal Dimension of Wind Speed Time SeriesUploaded byChristian F. Vega
- trretUploaded byRaj
- 05 Pipeline Systems ApproachUploaded bySiampol Feepakphor
- Problem Set 1Uploaded byXiaoqin Zhou
- Chapter 02 SlidesUploaded byZahraa AlQallaf
- Arena仿真与建模Uploaded bySalah Ahmed
- IPC2012-90184Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Ebus504 Handbook Hsismail 201011Uploaded byPravin Koli
- PLS IntegrationUploaded bymmissuari
- Gas Detector LocationUploaded byLuis Ricardo Martins Oliveira
- 2012 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLPjUploaded byZuniarAhmad
- SimulationsUploaded byBindiya Ramchurn
- Report_ORS_Workshop_BurkinaFaso_January2010.pdfUploaded bybernicem1988
- Brian Williams et al- Combining Experimental Data and Computer Simulations, With an Application to Flyer Plate ExperimentsUploaded byArchmca
- vaja1en_sUploaded byjernejaj
- oce421_lec6Uploaded byJiji Gopan
- Ch 2. Theory of ProbabilityUploaded byAri Septayuda
- Improvement of the Production Process through the Application of the Simulation TechniqueUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- Bil in Material Open SeesUploaded byOscar Ortiz Méndez
- How to run SAMUploaded byengrasheed
- infrastructureimprovement-6Uploaded byapi-336481310
- 01382856Uploaded bysanthosh_ram12
- 2012ipcc VidaUploaded byMartik Martikian

- Process Equipment Sizing and CostingUploaded byChemical.Ali
- Ipa Paper ProceedingsUploaded byasya
- HSE - OTH 535 - Pipeline Abandonment Guidelines, 1997Uploaded byeayujig
- standards for calculating pipe wall thicknessUploaded bycindydianita
- Learning From Pipeline FailuresUploaded byPrakhar Deep Kulshreshtha
- Stress Strain CurvesUploaded byasya
- distillation column sizingUploaded byasya
- FINAL Subsea Pipeline Cluster Report 56ppUploaded byClement Chima
- Indonesia 2008Uploaded byAdhityani Dhitri Putri
- Indicators of Process Safety Through the Lens of MacondoUploaded byasya
- pipeline safety journal.pdfUploaded byasya
- 120260 Shortcut Distillation.pdfUploaded by09021982
- The Design of a Chemical Plant Using HYSYS Simulation ProgramUploaded byasya

- M.tech Constrution Engineering AndManagement -2011Uploaded byanaszk
- Lesson 6 Probability Distributions NotesUploaded byOlajide Olanrewaju Adamolekun
- QM Sem IUploaded bysanai_0204
- Applications of Discrete Mathematics, Chapter # 2 comUploaded byAmmar Butt
- Tutorial 3Uploaded byWan Noraiman
- pargolUploaded byDev Tomar
- 1999 - USACE - CHL-99-21 - Use and Application of the EST - User's GuideUploaded byigor774
- Excel Statistics FunctionUploaded byBen Dandamun
- DistributionsUploaded byJulio Cesar Hernández García
- 1 Function Enrichment PDF August 14 2009Uploaded byTan KIm HAn
- Nordhaus climate economicsUploaded byclimatehomescribd
- Course structure_BSMS.pdfUploaded byPraveen Raja
- MAE403 2Uploaded byanatoink2
- CIM IUploaded byPrakash Raj
- 8 Factor of Safety and Probability of FailureUploaded byVũ Trí Minh
- HW4Uploaded byPallavi Raiturkar
- aero4syll.pdfUploaded byLokesh
- 13.ProbabilityUploaded byneela94
- IPA - Monte Carlo SimulationUploaded byNaufaldy Obianka
- ch1Uploaded by908908lolol
- Massey - 1990 - Causality, Feedback and Directed InformationUploaded byZhu Jingge
- lectnotemat2Uploaded bysanjay
- The Normal DistributionUploaded byjoff_gr
- 05_chapter 2 (1).pdfUploaded byArshiya Jabeen
- Principles of Marketing ( PDFDrive.com )Uploaded byNguyễn Ngọc Phương Linh
- S1-16-ET ZC434-L10Uploaded byAnand Bhaskar
- 3-(M) Discrete Random Variables & Probability DistributionsUploaded byNazar Aziz
- Random Variables & Probability DistributionsUploaded byyashar2500
- MatlabUploaded byShalini Kandaswamy
- Lecture Week 8Uploaded bysykim657