Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
RISK ASSESSMENT OF MODERN PIPELINES
James N. Mihell
Dynamic Risk, Ltd.
th
1324 17 Ave. S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, T2T 5S8,
Canada
ABSTRACT
Proponents of new pipeline projects are often asked by
regulators to provide estimates of risk and reliability for their
proposed pipeline. On existing pipelines, the availability of
operating and assessment data is generally considered to be
essential to the task of performing an accurate and defendable
risk or reliability assessment. For proposed or new pipelines,
the absence of these data presents a significant challenge to
those performing the analysis. The reliance on industry incident
data presents problems, since the vast majority of loss-of-
containment incidents relate to older pipelines in which the
design, routing criteria, material properties, material
manufacturing processes, and early operating practices differ
significantly from those that are characteristic of modern
pipelines. As a consequence, much of the available failure
incident data does not accurately reflect the threats or the
magnitudes of the threats that are associated with modern
pipelines. In order to address this problem, 'adjustment factors'
are often applied against incident data to try to account for
threat differences between the source data and the intended
application. The selection of these adjustment factors can often
be quite subjective, however, and open to judgment; therefore,
they can be difficult to justify.
With the rapidly growing practice of regular in-line inspection
(ILI) on transmission pipelines, an extensive repository of ILI
data has been accumulated - much of it relating to modern
pipelines. Through the judicious selection of source data, ILI
data sets can be mined so that an analogue data set can be
created that constitutes a reasonable representation of the
attributes of reliability of a specific new pipeline of interest.
Key reliability properties, such as tool error distribution, feature
incidence rate, feature size distribution, and apparent feature
growth rate distribution can be derived from such analogue
data. By applying these reliability properties in an analysis
along with known pipeline design and material properties and
1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90072
Cameron Rout
Dynamic Risk, Ltd.
th
1324 17 Ave. S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, T2T 5S8,
Canada
their associated distributions, and by taking consideration of
planned inspection intervals, a reliability basis can be derived
for estimating pipeline risk and reliability. Estimates of risk and
reliability that are derived in this manner employ
methodologies that are repeatable, defendable, transparent, and
free of subjectivity.
This paper outlines an approach for completing risk and
reliability estimates on new pipelines, and presents the results
of some sample calculations. The reliability estimates
illustrated are based on an approach whereby corrosion feature
size and growth rates are obtained from analogue ILI datasets,
and treated as random variables. In that regard, they constitute
the probability of exceeding a limit state that represents an
approximation of the condition for failure.
INTRODUCTION
One of the challenges of employing a quantitative risk
assessment on a new pipeline is that industry failure statistics
are not directly applicable to modern pipeline designs,
materials, and operating (i.e., assessment) practices. A review
of industry failure statistics indicates that the vast majority of
pipeline failures occur on pipelines that were installed in the
1970s or earlier (1, 2). These pipelines where largely
developed prior to the advent of several risk-critical
technologies, such as:
- High-performance coating systems, such as three-layer
coatings and fusion bonded epoxy coating systems,
- Design-phase identification of interference effects and
development of mitigation plans through diagnostic
testing of cathodic protection systems, and
- Design-phase identification of internal corrosion threat
factors and the design of mitigation plans through
internal corrosion modeling.
 - Design-phase identification of geotechnical threats, and foremost among these factors is the quality of the ILI
and mitigation through threat avoidance dataset itself. Tool quality factors such as detection reliability
Because of these factors, the use of historical incident data and sizing accuracy on both length and depth should be
is not a sound foundation for estimating failure frequency in reviewed to ensure that they represent the current state of the
modern pipelines. art in tool performance. Ultimately, as will be discussed later,
The use of statistical analysis and reliability methods, tool error plays a critical role in making reliability predictions,
supported by high-resolution in-line inspection data has become and the use of data that is associated with a high tool error
common practice in making failure likelihood estimates for distribution may give rise to an excessively conservative result.
existing pipelines in which such data exists (3, 4). As these ILI data should be reviewed to identify and remove wall
methods intrinsically address variables such as wall loss feature loss data that is not attributed to active corrosion. Otherwise,
incidence rate, growth rate and size distributions, they can be the presence of wall loss that is associated with benign features,
employed to make estimates of reliability and failure likelihood such as manufacturing imperfections might result in a gross
for both external corrosion and internal corrosion. By carefully over-estimation of corrosion feature density. Furthermore, non-
selecting ILI data sets to address conditions that influence zero wall loss rates will be inferred from the presence of such
factors that affect these variables, an analogue data set can be benign features, and those wall loss rates will be assigned to
obtained that can be superimposed on the design conditions what are in fact static features. The misinterpretation of benign
representing a new pipeline. In this manner, estimates of wall loss features in this fashion will result in an overly-
reliability and failure likelihood can be derived for the new conservative estimate of pipeline reliability.
pipeline for any future timeframe, given exposure to similar When evaluating internal corrosion susceptibility, one of
corrosive environments and the implementation of similar the simplest methods to perform screening is to view
protective measures. orientation charts for internal wall loss features. Where water
drop-out and accumulation is an essential aspect of the internal
NOMENCLATURE corrosion mechanism that is associated with the product and
ILI In-Line Inspection flow characteristics being considered, wall loss that is
Reliability Methods A statistical approach used to associated with internal corrosion should be expected at the
estimate the probability of a system bottom of the pipe, as is illustrated in Figure 1. This is
or structure completing its expected especially true where concentrations of internal wall loss can be
function during an interval of time. seen to coincide with steeper pipeline inclination angles or
PDF Probability density function: The receipt points.
density function of a continuous
random variable
CDF Cumulative distribution function:
The function that describes the
probability that a random variable
will be found at a value less than or
equal to a set value.
MIC Microbially Induced Corrosion
Monte Carlo A class of computational algorithms
that rely on repeated random
sampling to compute results.

SELECTION OF ANALOGUE ILI DATA

The reliability approach described in this paper employs
the superposition of an analogue ILI dataset upon the
contemplated new pipeline design. In this respect, the Figure 1. Internal Wall Loss Characteristic of Internal
reliability analysis of a new pipeline using analogue ILI data Corrosion
essentially models how the new pipeline materials and design
responds to an anticipated degradation process and establishes On the other hand, a random distribution of internal wall
how quickly the reliability degrades to a point where failure loss features around the circumference of the pipe, with no
likelihood becomes significant. For this reason, it is essential apparent trends relative to inclination angle or receipt points
that the analogue ILI dataset is representative of the might be more representative of benign manufacturing
degradation process, including defect incidence rate, defect size imperfections, as is represented in Figure 2.
distribution, and defect growth rate distribution.
Several factors must be considered in selecting an
appropriate ILI dataset that can be held as being representative
of corrosion performance anticipated for a new pipeline. First

2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 3. Apparent External Wall Loss Rate Based on
Figure 2. Random Internal Wall Loss Characteristic of Matched ILI Data
Manufacturing Imperfections

One effective method that can be used to screen for active

wall loss is to use data derived from pit-matching of separate
in-line inspections. Figures 3 through 6 are derived from ILI
data that is representative of the same section of pipeline.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of apparent external wall loss
rates obtained by pit matching ILI data taken four years apart.
When plotted as a probability density function, Figure 4
illustrates that the external wall loss is, in this example,
normally distributed, with a mean of 0.00 mm/yr, and a
standard deviation of 0.01 mm/yr. The inclusion of negative
growth rate values over half the distribution is indicative of the
fact that the apparent feature growth rate is insignificant
relative to pit matching error. Figure 5 shows the distribution Figure 4. Apparent External Wall Loss Rate
of apparent external wall loss rates for the same section of Distribution Based on Matched ILI Data
pipeline that is inferred from only one set of ILI data. In this
case, estimates of growth rates were derived by assuming linear
growth to the date of in-line inspection. This is generally
considered to be a conservative assumption, since it ignores the
tendency for growth rates to attenuate over time due to
polarization caused by the build-up of corrosion products.
When plotted as a probability density function, Figure 6
illustrates that the external wall loss is, for this example, best
represented as a Weibull distribution, having a mean of 0.03
mm/yr and a standard deviation of 0.02 mm/yr. It is apparent
from a comparison of Figures 3/4 with Figures 5/6 that in this
case, the vast majority of external wall loss features are
dormant (quite possibly benign manufacturing wall loss
features), and if only un-matched data were used as the basis of
the analysis, this would result in highly conservative reliability Figure 5. Distribution of Apparent External Wall Loss
results for the pipeline. Rate Based on Single Set of ILI Data

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Figure 6. Apparent External Wall Loss Rate
Distribution Based on Single Set of ILI Data
Beyond the quality of ILI data, several other factors must
be considered in selecting an appropriate ILI dataset. For the
evaluation of external corrosion threats, factors such as coating
type, coating specification, operating environment, and
cathodic protection standards and history should be evaluated
to confirm that those conditions are similar between those
represented by the analogue ILI dataset and those that are
proposed for the new pipeline.
For reliability estimates of the threat of internal corrosion,
an evaluation should be made of the corrosion susceptibility of
the pipeline from which analogue ILI data is being considered,
relative to the corrosion susceptibility that would be
characteristic of the new pipeline. A variety of internal
corrosion evaluation techniques exist, and while it is not the
intent of this paper to delve into these evaluation techniques in
detail, some mention is made here of factors that require
consideration.
Internal corrosion evaluation techniques are largely based
on product stream characteristics and flow rates. For liquid
products, the important parameters that should be included in a
comparison of Corrosivity are water content, erosion and
erosion/corrosion, flow velocity, temperature, susceptibility to
under-deposit corrosion (solid deposition, MIC potential, and
water chemistry), and mitigation measures (use of inhibition,
biocides, or pigging). In order to ensure that the corrosion
mechanism and corrosivity that is represented by the analogue
ILI dataset is representative of that which would be expected in
the new pipeline, an evaluation of all of these parameters must
be conducted.
An evaluation of water content should include
consideration of bottom sediment and water (BS&W), as well
as characterization of the flow regime as either turbulent (in
which water will be entrained) or lamellar (in which there may
be opportunities for water stratification and accumulation).
Consideration of solids should include an evaluation of the
potential for settling of the solids, given consideration of flow
velocity and flow properties.
4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Microbially Induced Corrosion (MIC) can greatly enhance
corrosion rates, especially in conjunction with solid deposition,
and the temperature range 15oC - 70oC is known to be
associated with increased MIC activity, leading to localized
attack.
Besides MIC activity, chloride concentration also plays an
important role in the overall corrosion and under-deposit
mechanisms. In respect of the overall corrosion rate, chlorides
increase the conductivity of the corrosive solution due to a
change in ionic strength, leading to an increase in the corrosion
rate. In the under-deposit corrosion mechanism, chlorides can
promote the removal of protective scales (if there are any),
leading to localized attack. In addition, strong changes in
temperature might form hydrochloric acid from the reaction of
the chlorides with water vapour. However, pipeline operators
have not experienced this phenomenon with temperature
changes below 150 °C.
Sulphur may be co-produced with sour gas and sour oil.
As a result of pressure and temperature changes (in most cases
a reduction) in the flowing conditions or in shut-in conditions,
sulphur may precipitate from polysulphides and cause plugging
and / or corrosion problems. From the corrosion viewpoint,
sulphur can increase corrosion in many ways, including
compromising protective iron sulphide layers, enhancing
cathodic reactions, and impairing inhibitor performance.
Erosion-corrosion could be a factor that enhances wall loss
rates if the flow velocity is higher than approximately 3 m/s,
and BS&W exceeds 0.5%.
Changes in temperature can lead to a rapid increase in the
corrosion rate if the corrosion mechanism is controlled by
diffusion. However, in a pipeline environment, temperature
also affects other important driving parameters, such as scale
deposition, chemical reactions rates, microbiological activity,
and presence of undissociated organic acid (short chain e.g.
acetic acid) .
ANALYSIS APPROACH
The above section described screening considerations for
selecting an appropriate analogue ILI dataset that is
representative of the corrosion mechanism and severity that is
expected on the new pipeline. This screening and selection of
appropriate analogue ILI data must be completed separately for
internal corrosion and external corrosion. Once this has been
completed, the analogue ILI dataset can be incorporated into
the procedure described in this section in order to establish
estimates of pipeline reliability as a function of year of
operation.
A Monte Carlo approach has been developed to assimilate
distributions derived from size and growth rate distributions
derived from the analogue ILI dataset, and to apply those
distributions against a failure limit state for volumetric wall
loss. In the example described here, the failure limit state
function is the modified ASME B31.G criterion, which, for the
purposes of the analysis, is rearranged to determine depth at the
limiting condition:
   
 


d f  MIN 0.8t  , 
t  op
    (1)
   op  
 
  0.85 M    
    
Where,
df = depth at the limiting condition;
t = Wall thickness;
σop = Operating Stress;

 = Flow stress;
Figure 7. Illustration of How Flaw Depth Distribution
Changes With Time
2
L2 L 
2

M  1  0.6257  0.003375  In the absence of any other information pertaining to how

Dt  Dt  growth rate varies with time, a linear growth rate assumption
(for L  50Dt ) can generally be considered a reasonable, yet conservative
approximation, since it ignores the polarizing effects of the
L2
M  3.3  0.032 accumulation of corrosion product.
Dt The high-performance coating systems that are
(for L  50 Dt ) characteristic of modern pipelines, such as fusion bonded epoxy
are not susceptible to time-dependent coating degradation to the
L = Defect length (which is described as a
extent that older vintage coating systems are. Therefore, it is
probability distribution characteristic of the dataset,
often realistic to assume that any coating damage that is
incorporating tool error on length measurement)
inferred from the presence of a corrosion feature was created at
the time of installation, and that the arial extent of coating
In the Monte Carlo analysis, the variables of pipe diameter,
damage, and hence the potential for increases in wall loss area
wall thickness, yield strength, and operating pressure that are
(i.e., length and width) does not change appreciably with time.
specific to the new pipe design are considered dynamic
Similarly, the introduction of new corrosion features may be
segments. Each dynamic segment of the new pipeline for
limited by the absence of time-dependent coating breakdown.
which the risk analysis is being evaluated requires a separate
In the Monte Carlo simulation, corrosion feature size, as a
reliability analysis. Corrosion feature incidence rates, and the
function of time, is sampled stochastically, based on the
distribution parameters for corrosion feature length and depth
probability density functions for those parameters derived from
are determined from the analogue ILI data, as are corrosion
the analogue ILI dataset. A further stochastic adjustment is
feature growth rates. When using ILI data for the purposes of
made to account for the tool error associated with the ILI tool
establishing these parameters, it is important to recognize that
from which the analogue data was derived. In performing this
the quantities derived represent values at a particular point in
stochastic adjustment for tool error, it is preferred to use
time (i.e., the date of last inspection). Furthermore, these
correlations derived from <Tool-Predicted> to <In-Ditch
quantities are subject to tool measurement error. Corrosion
Measurement> data pairs. When using this approach, it is
feature size is therefore considered characteristic of the size
important to minimize variability of in-ditch measurements
after some period of time. For example, when applied to a new
through standardization of in-ditch measurement practices, and
pipeline, the depth distribution must be adjusted downwards
the implementation of quality control measures. If direct
(accounting for some assumed corrosion growth rate) when the
measurement of tool measurement error isn’t available, the ILI
modeled pipeline age is smaller than that from which the
vendor’s published tool error can be used. For instance, tool
analogue ILI data was obtained. Similarly, the depth
error on depth measurement is often characterized at ±10% w.t.,
distribution must be adjusted upwards when the modeled
80% of the time. In statistical terms, this corresponds to a
pipeline age is larger than that from which the analogue ILI
normal error distribution having a mean of 0, and a standard
data was obtained. This is illustrated in Figure 7, which shows
deviation of 7.8% of the wall thickness.
how the flaw distribution flattens and translates with time, t.
Assuming a linear growth model, the stochastically-
Specifically, as can be seen in this Figure, as time increases, the
sampled flaw depth estimate is adjusted to account for the
mean of the flaw depth distribution increases, and that the
difference between the age of the analogue pipeline at the time
standard deviation of the flaw depth distribution also increases.
that the ILI data was acquired, and the modeled age of the new
pipeline:

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 o Note that in the above expression, the ratio: DN/DILI is
o
d  TA employed in recognition of the assumption that the frequency
dA  (2) of occurrence of coating defects (and hence corrosion features)
TILI will be proportional to the pipe surface area (with pipe surface
area being proportional to diameter).
Where, By performing a separate analysis for each year of
0 operation, and for each dynamic segment, a profile can be
dA = Stochastically sampled flaw depth at the specific generated that represents the probability of exceeding the
time assumed in the analysis; reliability limit for each year of operation of the new pipeline,
0 an example of which is provided in Figure 8.
d = Stochastically sampled flaw depth, derived from the
analogue ILI dataset (incorporating stochastic
adjustment for analogue ILI tool error)
TA = Year of operation for the new pipeline that is being
assumed in the analysis
TILI = Year of operation that the for the analogue pipeline
when the ILI assessment was completed.

For the purposes of the Monte Carlo simulation, all pipe

parameters that are contained in the limit state function shown
in Equation (1) (i.e., pipe wall thickness, operating stress level,
and flow stress) correspond to the new pipeline for which
failure probability values are being sought.
Limit state exceedance is predicted when the stochastically
sampled flaw size has a depth component that exceeds the
Figure 8. Frequency Profile Example
limiting condition (derived from Equation (1)). When the
Monte Carlo simulation is performed through multiple
In order to support a risk analysis, the output from the
iterations, the probability of limit state exceedance for the given
above analysis must be relevant to the consequence analysis.
year of analysis is defined as the proportion of those iterations
Therefore, the results should specify more than frequency of
that return a result that exceeds the limit state. This probability
occurrence; instead, the frequencies of occurrence should be
is defined as the conditional probability, given the presence of a
tied to an outcome, with outcome being related to magnitude of
corrosion feature, Pf,F. The overall probability for a given
a potential release, and hence hole-size. The proportion of
dynamic segment of the new pipeline in the year of operation
ruptures can be derived by first calculating the critical through-
being considered in the analysis is defined as:
wall flaw size as a function of material properties and operating
parameters of the new pipeline. There are a variety of through-
DN
Pe , DS   ILI 
wall fracture criteria relationships; an example of which is the
 LDS  Pe , F (3)
NG-18 flaw equation (5):
DILI
12  Cv  E 8  c     M T   h  (4)
2

Kc  
2
Pe , DS ln sec 
 2   
= Probability per dynamic segment
Ac 
 ILI = Corrosion feature density per unit length of pipeline
derived from the analogue ILI dataset The above relationship can be used to determine the
maximum size defect that will leak rather than rupture. At high
DN = Diameter of the new pipeline
toughness values, it represents a flow-stress or plastic
DILI = Diameter of the pipeline from which the analogue instability criterion (typical of the failure mode of most
ILI data was derived corrosion features), whereas at lower toughness values, it may
represent a conservative representation of the leak/rupture
LDS = Length of the dynamic segment in the new pipeline boundary for corrosion features.
As is illustrated in Figure 9, the cumulative distribution
Pe , F = Conditional probability, given the presence of a
function for flaw length, derived from the analogue ILI dataset
corrosion feature is compared against the critical through-wall flaw length for the
new pipeline. Using this approach, the proportion of features
that have the potential to penetrate through-wall at a length
greater than the critical through-wall flaw length can

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 conservatively be said to have the potential to fail in rupture these reasons is a sound basis for making realistic estimates for
mode, while the remainder of the flaws will fail as leaks. the purposes of supporting risk assessments in modern
pipelines.

REFERENCES
Figure 9. Determination of Fraction of Leaks and
Ruptures from Corrosion Feature Length CDF and
Critical Through-wall Flaw Size
The breakdown of leak sizes can be obtained from the
distribution of flaw areas (length x width) for those flaws that
are predicted to fail by leak mode. A reasonable, yet
conservative representation of the outcome associated with a
leak can be represented by the 50th percentile of flaw size area,
as is depicted in Figure 10.
1. Keifner, J.F., Trench, C.J., “Oil Pipeline
Characteristics and Risk Factors: Illustrations from the
Decade of Construction” API Publication, December,
2001.
2. U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline &
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline
Safety Stakeholder Communications, Significant
Incident Data, 1986-2001.
3. Chan, P.D., and Webster, D., “Probabilistic
Assessment of ILI Metal Loss Features”, ASME, 2010
International Pipeline Conference (IPC), IPC2010-
31298, September, 2010.
4. Mora R.G., Parker C., Vieth P., Delanty B.,
“Probability of Exceedance (POE) Methodology for
Developing Integrity Programs Based on Pipeline
Operator-Specific Technical and Economic Factors”,
ASME, 2002 Internal Pipeline Conference (IPC),
IPC2002-27224, October 2002.
5. Eiber, R.J., and Leis, B.N., “Fracture Control
Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines Circa 2001,
PRCI Report No. PR-003-00108, July, 2001.

Figure 10. Determining Hole Area From Distribution of

Flaw Area for Leak-Designated Corrosion Features

CONCLUSIONS
An approach based on probability of exceedance
methodologies has been advanced for estimating failure
likelihood to support risk assessments of new pipelines. This
approach addresses the problems that have historically been
associated with the use of failure incident data. These failure
incident data are unduly influenced by older vintage pipelines
for which the material performance and design features are not
a good representation of modern pipelines. The approach
described is transparent, defendable and repeatable, and for

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use