Proceedings

Proceedings of IPC’02
of IPC 2002:
4th International
International Pipeline
Pipeline Conference
Conference
September 29-October 3,September 29 - October
2002, Calgary, 3 2002,
Alberta, Calgary
Canada

IPC2002-27224
IPC02-27224

PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE (POE) METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING

INTEGRITY PROGRAMS BASED ON PIPELINE OPERATOR-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL
AND ECONOMIC FACTORS
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Thomas J. Barlo, Ph D., who always encouraged
ideas/projects for a better understanding of today’s integrity challenges.

Rafael G. Mora Curtis Parker, P. Eng.

Senior Integrity Specialist Senior Engineer, Pipeline Integrity
CC Technologies Canada, Calgary, AB TransGas Limited, Regina, SK
Patrick H. Vieth, P.E. Burke Delanty, P. Eng.
Project Technical advisor Project Manager
Vice-president of CC Tech., Vice-president of CC Tech.,
Dublin, OH Calgary, AB

ABSTRACT cost/benefit analysis provided a simplified and safe decision-

With the availability of in-line inspection data, pipeline making process.
operators have additional information to develop the technical INTRODUCTION
and economic justification for integrity verification programs TransGas Limited, and its affiliate Many Islands Pipe
(i.e. Fitness-for-Purpose) across an entire pipeline system. The Lines (Canada) Limited, own and operate over 13,500
Probability of Exceedance (POE) methodology described kilometers of gathering and transmission pipeline within the
herein provides a defensible decision making process for province of Saskatchewan, Canada. As illustrated in Figure 1,
addressing immediate corrosion threats identified through TransGas and MIPL(C)L interconnections provide access to
metal loss in-line inspection (ILI) and the use of sub-critical eastern Canadian and United States markets for Saskatchewan,
in-line inspection data to develop a long term integrity Alberta, and United States-sourced gas supplies.
management program. In addition, this paper describes the
process used to develop a Corrosion In-line Inspection POE-
based Assessment for one of the systems operated by TransGas
Limited (Saskatchewan, Canada).
In 2001, TransGas Limited and CC Technologies
undertook an integrity verification program of the Loomis to
Herbert gas pipeline system to develop an appropriate scope
and schedule maintenance activities along this pipeline system.
This methodology customizes Probability of Exceedance
(POE) results with a deterministic corrosion growth model to
determine pipeline specific excavation/repair and re-inspection
interval alternatives. Consequently, feature repairs can be
scheduled based on severity, operational and financial
conditions while maintaining safety as first priority. The
merging of deterministic and probabilistic models identified
the Loomis to Herbert pipeline system’s worst predicted metal
loss depth and the lowest safety factor per each repair/re-
inspection interval alternative, which when combined with the Figure 1.TransGas Pipeline System, Saskatchewan,
Canada

1 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 The 210-kilometer MIPL(C)L Loomis to Herbert 406.4mm
pipeline was constructed in 1972, and is operated by TransGas PURPOSE
Limited. To ensure the continued safety and reliability of this The purpose of the TransGas Corrosion ILI POE-based
pipeline, TransGas initiated a program to verify its’ integrity Assessment was to assess the immediate and future integrity
utilizing in-line inspection (ILI) technologies to detect and acceptability of the metal loss features detected by the MFL
characterize mechanical damage and metal loss features. The inspection tool in the Loomis to Herbert gas pipeline system.
program was required to minimize disruptions to In addition to the MFL inspection, a High-Deformation
transportation service and to provide an optimized future Inspection and a SCC Soil Model were integrated.
maintenance plan. CC technologies (CCT) provided the Both deterministic and probabilistic methodologies were
technical and project management support for the development applied and merged to determine the current and future
and implementation of the near and long-term integrity criticality of each metal loss, with respect to both the leak (i.e.
management program. >80%wt) and rupture (i.e. <100% MOP) criteria, for a 20-year
The project plan was performed through five (5) tasks: period following the 2001 MFL inspection.
Engineering assessment, High resolution deformation in-line
inspection (ILI) program, High resolution magnetic flux DESCRIPTION OF PROBABILISTIC AND
leakage (MFL) ILI program, Excavation and repair program, DETERMINISTIC METHODOLOGY
and a Fitness-for-Purpose report documenting the results, The probabilistic methodology takes into consideration
conclusions and recommendations. such factors as: the inherent tolerances associated with an in-
The Fitness-for-Purpose report also included the Corrosion line inspection tool and the subsequent growth of the corrosion
ILI POE-based Assessment, illustrated in Figure 2, developed features identified by the in-line inspection tool.
through the following three (3) phases: 100
Probability of Exceedance
1. ILI Preliminary Assessment `
2. Excavation and ILI Validation program
Actual Depth, % Wall Loss
90
3. ILI Final Assessment
The main objective of these phases was to establish a diligent
80
and cost effective short and long-term integrity program for
time dependent features (i.e. internal and external corrosion).
The POE-based methodology, as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, 70
identified the critical and sub-critical corrosion threats
80% Pig Call
determining the excavation/repair and re-inspection interval
60
alternatives summarized by integrity and financial indicators. 70% Pig Call
Those indicators described by the Unitized POE-risk (i.e. leak
60% Pig Call
and rupture) and Net Present Value (NPV) levels provided the 50
decision elements for comparing and evaluating each of the 50 60 70 80 90 100
integrity program alternatives. Pig Call Depth, % Wall Loss
The Probability of Exceedance (POE) methodology for Figure 3 POE for Leak Criteria (Metal loss depth)
corrosion features was integrated to the deterministic (i.e.
linear regression equations) corrosion growth models
providing a variety of potential repair/remediation schedules,
1.10
which were economically evaluated by preparing a cash-flow RPR = 1 is equal to 100% SMYS
per alternative (i.e. MFL Re-inspection, early and safe-latest
1.00 20% x 250 mm
repair/remediation schedules).
RPR Field Measurement

50% x 250 mm
75% x 250 mm
0.90
NOMENCLATURE
CCT: CC Technologies
0.80
FOS: Factor of Safety
ILI: In-line Inspection
0.70
MOP: Maximum Operating Pressure `

MFL: Magnetic Flux Leakage

0.60
POE: Probability of Exceedance
Probability of Exceedance
RPR: Rupture Pressure Ratio
0.50
SCC: Stress Corrosion Cracking
0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
WT: Wall Thickness RPR Pig Call
Figure 4 POE for Rupture Criteria
(RPR or Predicted Burst Pressure)
2 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 Figure 2. CORROSION IN-LINE INSPECTION POE-BASED ASSESSMENT

2. Excavation/Repair and ILI Validation

1. Corrosion ILI Preliminary Assessment 3. Corrosion ILI Final Assessment
Program

ILI RUN
Actual tool accuracy
ILI Vendor’s
Preliminary Report Pipeline Field Excavation/
Inspection, Assessment
and Repair Program
Depth and Predicted burst
Pressure Adjustments
Pressure
Critical YES reduction
features & Corrosion Growth Model
Leak detection Depth and Pressure
NO Excavation / Inspection [Deterministic Assessment]
YES
ILI Vendor’s
FINAL Critical
REPORT features POE-risk Modeling

3
Leak and Rupture criteria
[Probabilistic Assessment]
Field Assessment
[Method, Repair criteria]
ILI data Quality Control and Assurance,
and Integration to Geometry Inspection, SCC
Models and Pipe Class locations Re-Inspection Interval
based on sub-critical repair
scenarios
Tool Expected Accuracy
Repair [Methodology]
[Monte Carlo Simulation]

Cost Benefit Analysis

Corrosion Growth and Probability of
Exceedance Model (POE-risk)
[Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment] Excavation / Repair
Documentation
Best Technical/Economic
Optimized Excavation/Repair Program Re-Inspection Interval
Initial Re-inspection Interval

Copyright © 2002 by ASME

3 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 The deterministic methodology, which is actually
incorporated within the POE analysis, also takes into
consideration the inherent tolerances associated with an in-line
inspection tool and the subsequent growth of the corrosion
features identified by the in-line inspection tool. In this
approach, as is the case with the POE analysis, the dimensions
of the metal loss features are “adjusted” based upon either the
specified tool tolerances (i.e. in the absence of verification
excavations) or based upon the results of the verification
excavations. The “adjusted” metal loss features are
subsequently grown into the future, for a 20-year period
following the in-line inspection to establish the earliest year in
which they are predicted to fail either by leak or rupture
criteria.
The primary difference between the two approaches is that
the deterministic methodology assumes that the dimensions of
the “adjusted” metal loss features are in fact correct; whereas,
the POE analysis assumes that there is a certain probability
that the actual dimensions of the metal loss feature may be
more or less severe than those of the “adjusted” metal loss
feature. The number of metal loss features predicted to fail
annually, using the deterministic approach, is used in the POE
analysis in order to establish various scenarios regarding future
excavation/repair and/or re-inspection programs. As
illustrated in equation (1), the POE analysis subsequently
determines the cumulative probability for each scenario and
transforms that probability into pipeline integrity indicators
such as worst predicted depth and lowest expected factor of
safety at any given time in the future.
n deterministic methodology using the corrosion growth
POE Cumulative = 1 - ∏ (1- Pi) (1)
i= 1
Where
Pi = Probability of exceedance per feature (leak or rupture)
∏ = Factorization of the selected POE values (1-Pi)
n = Number of the selected metal loss features
PHASES AND PROCEDURES OF THE CORROSION
ILI POE-BASED ASSESSMENT
1. ILI Preliminary Assessment
The in-line inspection data, provided by the MFL vendor
in the Final Report, was initially analyzed to establish a feature
severity ranking and subsequently, to design an optimum
excavation and repair program. The objective of the excavation
and repair program was to ensure the continued safety and
integrity of the Loomis to Herbert pipeline system and provide
statistically significant data to validate the accuracy of the
MFL tool data.
The in-line inspection data was analyzed using both the
probabilistic and deterministic methodologies to identify the
locations along the pipeline system, which contained the most
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
severe (i.e. leak and rupture criteria) and/or highest density of
metal loss features.
A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to provide
simulated data (i.e. expected depth and burst pressure in the
field) to the individual metal loss features reported by the MFL
inspection. The simulated data accounted for the vendor’s
specified tool sizing performance that allowed figuring out the
linear regression equations and the prediction error (i.e.
Standard error) required by the deterministic and probabilistic
growth modeling.
In addition, the locations of geometric features found by
the high-resolution deformation in-line inspection tool were
correlated with the locations of the metal loss features detected
by the MFL in-line inspection tool in order to rank severity and
optimize the excavation and repair program. Moreover, the
SCC Soil Model was also overlaid to identify features that may
be in close proximity to SCC susceptible soils.
Process Followed to Complete ILI Preliminary Assessment
1. A feature acceptance analysis was conducted based on
vendor’s MFL preliminary report in order to determine
whether there were any critical features that required some
form of immediate action (i.e. pressure reduction, leak
detection, and immediate excavation and repair)
2. An initial preliminary quality control and assurance
process of the ILI data was performed
3. The data integration with the Metal loss and high-
resolution deformation inspections, and SCC Soil Model
was performed.
4. Initially, the MFL inspection data was analyzed using the
rates listed in Table 1 for the following two scenarios: [1]
dimensions of metal loss features are “as reported” by the
MFL vendor [2] dimensions of metal loss features are
“adjusted” by using a Monte Carlo Simulation. The leak
and rupture failing feature sequence identified by the
deterministic approach led the cumulative probabilistic
analysis to group the number of the features to be
excavated per each Re-inspection interval scenario.
Table 1 Estimated Corrosion Growth Rates
Feature Corrosion Growth Rate
Depth (mm/year)
<20 % 0.1
>=20%, <40% 0.2
>=40% 0.3
5. A cost effective excavation/repair and ILI validation
program was developed with TransGas Limited based on
the ILI Preliminary assessment results.
4 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 2. Excavation/Repair and ILI Validation Program
The purpose of this program was to validate the accuracy
of the data provided by the MFL tool, in terms of the
characteristics (length, depth, width and clock position),
predicted burst pressure, and Rupture Pressure Ratio (RPR) of
significance coefficients was performed on the unity
graphs and subsequently analyzed. If multiple trends were
observed, in any of the unity graphs, breaking points in
B(1)

the reported metal loss features. In addition, the UTM Defect D(1)
coordinates were verified on the excavated girth welds and
A(1)
metal loss and deformation features. <6t

A plot comparing the field to the ILI tool data was C(1) Defect
Cluster 1
prepared determining the linear regression coefficients. Hence,
the Monte Carlo simulation results were replaced by the ILI <6t
Validation. B(2)

< 300 mm
(12”)
D(2) Defect

Process Followed to Complete Excavation/Repair and ILI

Validation Program <6t

1. Each metal loss feature was mapped in the field with C(2) Defect Cluster 2
Group Dimensions
L = ((A(1) + B(1)) + (A(2) + B(2))) and
respect to their maximum depth and total length. As W = ((C(1) + D(1)) + (C(2) + D(2)))
illustrated in Figure 5, an interaction criterion of “3t” was A(2)

used in the field when assessing the interaction of adjacent

Figure 6 Interaction rule level 2: Groups
metal loss features.
[3t + 150 mm]

3t

Expected Tool Vendor:

3t 10% within 80%Sample
Individual C
Feature

3t
A

3t Individual
Feature D

Cluster Dimensions: L = (A+B); W = (C+D) Figure 7 Actual Cumulative Tool Accuracy

Figure 5 Interaction rule level 1: Clusters
[3t]

The failure pressure of each metal feature was assessed by

comparing its maximum depth and length to the
previously established failure curves for this pipeline
system. If a metal loss failed this preliminary assessment,
it was then mapped out using a 12 mm by 12 mm
corrosion grid and its burst pressure calculated using the
RStreng Effective Area methodology.
2. The individual metal loss features, “clusters” and
“groups”, as illustrated in Figure 6, found in the field were
matched to and verified against MFL data.
3. The quality control and assurance process initiated in the
preliminary study was finalized including actual tool
accuracy calculations, as illustrated in Figure 7, and field Figure 8 Field versus Tool Correlation
sampling distribution versus MFL reported feature the plots were established.
distribution.
4. As illustrated in Figure 8, a linear regression trend that
provided slope, intercept, prediction error, correlation and

5 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 3 ILI Final Assessment analysis to evaluate their potential impact on the
The dimensions of each metal loss feature reported by cumulative POE-leak and rupture curves.
MFL vendor in its final report were “adjusted” by using the
tool accuracy coefficients calculated after the field verification 7. As illustrated in Figures 13 and 14, the Unitized POE-leak
program. These “adjusted” values were subsequently used by and rupture “risk” levels are defined by the equivalent
both the probabilistic and deterministic methodologies to “risk” to statistically have “at least one feature” with a
determine updating the acceptability of each metal loss feature depth of 80% wt or a predicted burst pressure of 100%
for a 20-year period following the 2001 inspection. MOP, respectively. In addition, the Unitized POE-leak and
The predicted depth and burst pressure, of each metal loss rupture risk level for 70% wt and l10% MOP were
feature, was calculated on an annual basis for the 20-year calculated to account for safety conditions during the
period following the inspection. The analysis also included additional excavation sites.
determining the earliest year in which, each metal loss feature
failed the leak (i.e. > 80%wt) and rupture (i.e. <100% MOP)
criteria. Cumulative probability curves were created, using the
probabilistic analysis (i.e. POE analysis) and data obtained
from the deterministic methodology, to evaluate various
excavation/repair and/or re-inspection scenarios. These curves
were used to assess the associated “integrity indicators” (i.e.
the worst predicted depth and lowest expected factor of safety)
for each of the respective repair scenarios at any given time in
the future.

Process Followed to Complete ILI Final Assessment

1. The predicted “adjusted” depth, burst pressure and RPR Figure 9 Features Exceeding Leak Criteria (80%wt)
for each metal loss feature, reported by MFL vendor, were Deterministic Corrosion Growth Model
calculated, based upon the field validation program, for
the inspection year (i.e. 2001).
2. The “adjusted” dimensions for each metal loss feature
were grown into the future, at the growth rates specified in
Table 1, by using the deterministic methodology. The
expected depth, burst pressure and RPR for each metal
loss feature were calculated on an annual basis for a 20-
year period following the inspection.
3. As illustrated in Figures 9 and 10, the output from the
deterministic approach was used to rank the metal loss
features based upon the year in which they were predicted
to fail the leak criteria (i.e. >80% of the pipe wall
thickness) and the rupture criteria (i.e. <100% MOP). The Figure 10 Features Exceeding Rupture Criteria (MAOP)
output from the deterministic approach was also used to Deterministic Corrosion Growth Model
determine the features that would be remaining after any
proposed excavation/repair program. 8. As illustrated in Figure 11 and 12, the identified Unitized
4. Various excavation/repair and re-inspection scenarios were POE-80% wt and 100% MOP (critical limits) were
initially identified and evaluated based upon the overlaid on the cumulative POE-leak curves per scenario
aforementioned deterministic ranking process. to identify the year at which those leak and rupture
5. As illustrated in Figures 11 and 12, the two sets of conditions may be probabilistically reached accounting for
cumulative probability of exceedance curves (i.e. leak and the actual tool accuracy and pipeline corrosion growth.
rupture) for adjusted predicted depth and burst pressure of 9. In addition, the identified Unitized POE-70% wt and
the selected features were sequence-synchronized with 110% MOP (minimum safety conditions for excavation)
deterministic results (i.e. features failing leak and/or were overlaid on the cumulative POE-leak curves per
rupture in step 3). scenario to identify the year at which those leak and
6. The various excavation/repair and re-inspection scenarios rupture conditions may be probabilistically reached
derived from the deterministic approach (i.e. removing accounting for the actual tool accuracy and pipeline
identified features, step 4) were evaluated using the POE corrosion growth.

6 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
1E+00 POE at 80%
1.E+00

1E-01
1.E-01

1E-02
1.E-02
A. Before digs
1E-03
1.E-03
1E-04 B. After digs

1E-05 1.E-04
C. After digs w/o the 4
worst remaining
1E-06 1.E-05
defects
D. After digs w/o the 7
1E-07 worst remaining 1.E-06
defects

Probability of Exceedance POE-LEAK

1E-08
1.E-07
1E-09
1.E-08
1E-10

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Year
Figure 13 Unitized POE-leak for 80% and 70% wt
Figure 11 POE-leak risk Scenarios at 80% wt
Probabilistic Corrosion Growth Model

7
0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70
1.E+00 POE at 100%
1.E+00
1.E-01 125%
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-02
1.E-03
A. Before digs 1.E-03
1.E-04
1.E-04
B. After digs
1.E-05
1.E-05
1.E-06 C. After digs w/o the
1st worst remaining 1.E-06
defects
1.E-07
D. After digs w/o the 3 1.E-07
worst remaining
1.E-08
POE-RUPTURE

defects 1.E-08
E. After digs w/o the 5

Cumulative Probability of Exceedance

1.E-09 worst remaining
defects
1.E-09
1.E-10
1.E-10
1.E-11
1.E-11

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

1.E-12
Year

Figure 14 Unitized POE-rupture for 100% and 110% MOP

Figure 12 POE-rupture risk Scenarios at 100% MOP

Copyright © 2002 by ASME

7 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 10. The re-inspection year for each scenario was determined
by identifying the earliest year out of the following POE-
based equations (2) and (3).
Year(2) = Year [The earliest year: POE 70%wt and POE 110% MOP] – 1 yr
Year(3) = Year [The earliest year: POE 80%wt and POE 100% MOP] – 2 yr
The rationale of subtracting one year in equation (2) is to
provide TransGas Limited, a reasonable time frame (i.e. 1
year) for receiving and assessing the MFL inspection
results, before the pipeline metal loss features would reach
a depth of 70% wt or a safety factor of 110% MOP.
Equation (3) would also assure than none of the features
would reach a depth of 80% wt or a safety factor of 100%
MOP, by providing two (2) years after the MFL inspection
to assess or verify any potential sub-critical feature
11. Based on Figure 13 and 14 the worst predicted depth and
worst predicted safety factor (FOS) per each scenario were
identified by determining the actual POE-level reached by
the scenario (Figure 11 and 12).
12. The cost/benefit or Net Present Value (NPV) per each
scenario was evaluated through a time-based cash flow
layout. As illustrated in Figure 15, the components of the
cash flow used in were: the in-line inspection cost at the
re-inspection year, and the dig cost for each site at 2002
and at the last year for remediation. The current market
value of the cash flow components was projected to the
task execution-year using the inflation rate, and
financially returned to the present value after applying the
TransGas’s investment return rate.
POE-Criteria
NPVi for scenario (i) 70% wt
110% MOP
Latest year for
remediation
Inspection
Year
1 yr
Repairs
2 yr
ILI Re-Inspection
earliest re -inspect ion
Year(2) = Year [The earliest year: POE 70%wt and POE 110% MOP] – 1 yr.
Year(3) = Year [The earliest year: POE 80%wt and POE 100% MOP] – 2 yr
Figure 15 POE-based Re-inspection intervals
As illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 16, the assessment for
the Shaunavon to Herbert section suggested that Scenario
4b, five(5) additional excavations/repairs and re-
inspection in 2010½, was not only the least expensive
alternative at CDN2001$215,245, it was also the best
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
scenario from both the technical and economical
perspective. Under this scenario, the worst predicted depth
and lowest expected factor of safety of metal loss feature
prior to the 2010½-ILI re-inspection would be 58% wt and
(2) 1.17 MOP, respectively,
(3)
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Probability of Exceedance (POE) methodology
provides a safe, comprehensive and simplified decision-
making process on developing Pipeline Integrity
Programs.
2. The POE methodology safely determines re-inspection
interval options designing cost effective Excavation/Repair
programs by taking into consideration ILI Metal loss tool
accuracy and pipeline corrosion growth.
3. POE-based Integrity (i.e. Worst predicted depth and
Lowest safety factor) and financial (i.e. Net Present Value)
indicators provide a quantified and qualified measurement
of safety and cost effectiveness when deciding on
Excavation/repair and Re-inspection Interval programs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge to the memory of
Thomas J. Barlo who significantly contributed to the POE
methodology development. The authors are grateful for his
contributions to this project and several others.
REFERENCES
Vieth, P. H., Rust, S. W., and Ashworth, B. P., “Use of In-
line Inspection Data for Integrity Management”, NACE
International, Proceedings of Corrosion 99 Conference.
80% wt
Vieth, P. H., “Comprehensive, long-term integrity
100% MOP management programs are being developed and implemented
to reduce the likelihood of pipeline failures”, Corrosion 2002
Conference, Plenary Lecture.
8 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 Figure 16 Re-inspection Interval Economic Assessment

Table 2 Re-inspection Interval Repair Scenarios: Technical and Economic Factors

Worst
Year Failing Year Failing Re-Inspection Year Net Present
predicted
80% wt and 70% wt and [3] Latest Year for Number Value
Depth & FOS
Scenario 100% MOP 110% MOP [2]=[1a] – 2 yr or Repairs Repairs (NPV) in
(MOP)
[1a] [1b] [2]=[1b] – 1 yr 2001
[After Reps]
(earliest year)

1: 0 repairs,
2006/2011/ 61% wt,
Fixed inspection 2008 ¾ 2007 ½ N/A 0 $594,182
2016/2021(1) 1.30 MOP
interval
2: 0 repairs 62% wt,
2008 ¾ 2007 ½ 2006 ½ N/A 0 $221,367
1.27 MOP
3a: 4 additional
repairs 62% wt,
2010 2008 ¾ 2007 ¾ 2007 1/2(2) 2 $253,480
(4 features), 1.26 MOP
Digs in 2002
3b: 4 additional
repairs 62% wt,
2010 2008 ¾ 2007 ¾ 2007 1/2(2) 2 $241,641
(4 features), 1.26 MOP
Digs in 2007 1/2
4a: 5 additional
repairs 58% wt,
2012 ½ 2011 ¾ 2010 ½ 2007 1/2(2) 5 $230,044
(7 features), 1.17 MOP
Digs in 2002
4b: 5 additional
repairs, 58% wt,
2012 ½ 2011 ¾ 2010 ½ 2007 1/2(2) 5 $215,245
(7 features) 1.17 MOP
Digs in 2007 1/2

9 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2002/69720/ on 07/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab