This paper presents a methodology to assess and dynamically update the risk of process components affected by pitting corrosion. The proposed framework considers the time-dependent growth of pits and uses the non-homogenous Markov process to model the maximum pit depth. The developed pit depth model is incorporated into a limit state function to estimate the failure probability of affected components. Economic consequences are estimated considering both business and accidental losses due to failure. The estimated risk is updated using Bayesian analysis as new inspection data become available. Different risk management strategies including prevention, control and mitigation measures are also studied.
ShekariEKhanFAhmedS.Probabilistic modeling of pitting corrosion in insulated components operating in offshore facilities. J Risk Uncert Engrg Sys B Mech Engrg2016; 3 (March): 1–11.
2.
American Petroleum Institute. API RP 571 damage mechanisms affecting fixed equipment in the refining industry. 2nd ed. Washington (DC): API; 2011.
3.
HorrocksPMansfieldDParkerK. Managing ageing plant: a summary guide. Warrington: Health and Safety Executive (HSE); 2008.
4.
HongHP.Inspection and maintenance planning of pipeline under external corrosion considering generation of new defects. Struct Saf. 1999; 21 (3): 203–222. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4730(99)00016-8
5.
TanZLiJWuZAn evaluation of maintenance strategy using risk based inspection. Saf Sci. 2011; 49 (6): 852–860. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.015
6.
JonesBJenkinsonIYangZThe use of Bayesian network modelling for maintenance planning in a manufacturing industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2010; 95 (3): 267–277. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2009.10.007
7.
BretonTSanchez-GhenoJCAlamillaJLIdentification of failure type in corroded pipelines: a Bayesian probabilistic approach. J Hazard Mater. 2010; 179 (1-3): 628–634. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.03.049
8.
StraubDSørensenJDGoyetJBenefits of risk based inspection planning for offshore structures. Proc Int Conf Offshore Mech Arct Eng – OMAE; 2006. Vol. 2006.
9.
StraubD.Generic approaches to risk based inspection planning for steel structures [PhD thesis]. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zürich; 2004.
10.
XuLYChengYF.Reliability and failure pressure prediction of various grades of pipeline steel in the presence of corrosion defects and pre-strain. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2012; 89: 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2011.09.008
11.
HasanSKhanFKennyS.Probability assessment of burst limit state due to internal corrosion. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2012; 89: 48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2011.09.005
12.
ThodiPKhanFHaddaraM.Risk based integrity modeling of offshore process components suffering stochastic degradation. J Qual Maint Eng. 2013; 19 (2): 157–180. doi: 10.1108/13552511311315968
13.
ThodiP.Risk based integrity modeling for the optimal maintenance strategies of offshore process components [PhD thesis]. Memorial University of Newfoundlnad; 2011.
14.
RaceJMDawsonSJStanleyLMDevelopment of a predictive model for pipeline external corrosion rates. J Pipeline Eng. 2007; 6: 13–30.
15.
Akmar MokhMC& IsmailA.Probabilistic reliability assessment of an insulated piping in the presence of corrosion defects. Appl Sci. 2011; 11: 2063–2067. doi: 10.3923/jas.2011.2063.2067
16.
KrishnasamyLKhanFHaddaraM.Development of a risk-based maintenance (RBM) strategy for a power-generating plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind. Mar. 2005; 18 (2): 69–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.01.002
17.
KasaiNMaedaTTamuraKApplication of risk curve for statistical analysis of backside corrosion in the bottom floors of oil storage tanks. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2016; 141: 19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.03.014
18.
CainesSKhanFShirokoffJ.Analysis of pitting corrosion on steel under insulation in marine environments. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2013; 26 (6): 1466–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.09.010
19.
BhandariJKhanFAbbassiRModelling of pitting corrosion in marine and offshore steel structures – a technical review. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2015; 37: 39–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.06.008
VillaVPaltrinieriNKhanFTowards dynamic risk analysis: a review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Saf Sci. 2016; 89: 77–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002
22.
Vasconcelos De FariasBAntoun NettoT.FPSO hull structural integrity evaluation via Bayesian updating of inspection data. Ocean Eng. 2012; 56: 10–19. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.08.001
23.
KasaiNMoriSTamuraKPredicting maximum depth of corrosion using extreme value analysis and Bayesian inference. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2016; 146: 129–134. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.08.002
24.
ZhangSZhouWQinH.Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth model for energy pipelines considering the sizing error in inspection data. Corros Sci. 2013; 73: 309–320. doi: 10.1016/j.corsci.2013.04.020
25.
QinHZhouWZhangS.Bayesian inferences of generation and growth of corrosion defects on energy pipelines based on imperfect inspection data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2015; 144: 334–342. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.007
26.
MaoD.Bayesian modeling of pitting corrosion in steam generators [Master's thesis]. Waterloo: University of Waterloo; 2007.
27.
Ait MokhtarEHChateauneufALaggouneR.Bayesian approach for the reliability assessment of corroded interdependent pipe networks. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2016; 148: 46–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.11.002
28.
GelmanACarlinJBSternHS. Bayesian data analysis. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis; 2004.
29.
DundulisGŽutautaitėIJanulionisRIntegrated failure probability estimation based on structural integrity analysis and failure data: natural gas pipeline case. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2016; 156: 195–202. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.003
30.
MalekiSCuiX.A proposed Bayesian updating approach to update the failure probability of a corrosion defect after performing fitness for service based on API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference PVP2016; 2016. p. 1–10.
31.
ShekariEKhanFIAhmedS.Dynamic probabilistic assessment of pitting corrosion using Bayesian analysis. Eng Fail Anal. 2018Under review.
KalantarniaMKhanFHawboldtK.Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory. J Loss Prev Process Ind. Sep. 2009; 22 (5): 600–606. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2009.04.006
34.
KhakzadNKhanFAmyotteP.Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2012; 104: 36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.003
35.
YuanZKhakzadNKhanFRisk analysis of dust explosion scenarios using Bayesian networks. Risk Anal. 2015; 35 (2): 278–291. doi: 10.1111/risa.12283
36.
YeoCTBhandariJAbbassiRDynamic risk analysis of offloading process in floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) platform using Bayesian network. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2016; 41: 259–269. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.04.002
37.
KhanFHashemiSJPaltrinieriNDynamic risk management: a contemporary approach to process safety management. Curr Opin Chem Eng. 2016; 14: 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.coche.2016.07.006
38.
HongH.Application of the stochastic process to pitting corrosion. Corrosion. 1999; 55: 10–16. doi: 10.5006/1.3283958
39.
AzizPM.Application of the statistical theory of extreme values to the analysis of maximum pit depth data for aluminum. Corrosion. 1956; 12: 495t–506t. doi: 10.5006/0010-9312-12.10.35
40.
ElolaASOteroTFPorroA.Evolution of the pitting of aluminum exposed to the atmosphere. Corrosion. 1992; 48 (10): 854–863. doi: 10.5006/1.3315885
41.
PrideSTScullyJrHudsonJL.Metastable pitting of aluminum and criteria for the transition to stable pit growth. J Electrochem Soc. 1994; 141 (11): 3028. doi: 10.1149/1.2059275
42.
WorkmanMr.On probabilistic transition rates used in Markov models for pitting corrosion [Master's thesis]. Akron (OH): University of Akron; 2014.
43.
ZhaoJ.Risk management for pitting corrosion [Master's thesis]. Akron (OH): University of Akron; 2014.
44.
ValorACaleyoFAlfonsoL. Markov chain models for the stochastic modeling of pitting corrosion. Math Probl Eng. 2013; 2013: 1–13. doi: 10.1155/2013/108386
45.
QinSCuiW.Effect of corrosion models on the time-dependent reliability of steel plated elements. Mar Struct. 2003; 16: 15–34. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8339(02)00028-X
46.
Hairil MohdMPaikJK.Investigation of the corrosion progress characteristics of offshore subsea oil well tubes. Corros Sci. Feb. 2013; 67: 130–141. doi: 10.1016/j.corsci.2012.10.008
47.
ASME. ASME B31.G: manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2012.
48.
DNV. Recommended practice DNV-RP-F101 ‘corroded pipelines’. Oct 20. Høvik: Det Norske Veritas (DNV); 2015.
49.
ShekariEKhanFAhmedS.A predictive approach to fitness-for-service assessment of pitting corrosion. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2015; 137: 13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2015.04.014
50.
ShekariEKhanFIAhmedS.Economic risk analysis of pitting corrosion in process facilities. J Press Vessel Technol. 2017; 157: 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2017.08.005
51.
American Petroleum Institute. API RP 581: risk-based inspection technology. 3rd ed.Washington (DC): API; 2016.
52.
KhanFIAmyottePR.I2SI: a comprehensive quantitative tool for inherent safety and cost evaluation. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2005; 18 (4-6): 310–326. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.022
53.
DNV. Recommended practice DNV-RP-G101 – risk based inspection of offshore topsides static mechanical equipment. Oct 20. Høvik: Det Norske Veritas (DNV); 2010.
54.
CCPS. Guidelines for consequence analysis of chemical releases. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers; 1999.
55.
HameedAKhanF.A framework to estimate the risk-based shutdown interval for a processing plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2014; 32 (1): 18–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2014.07.009
56.
American Petroleum Institute. Recommended practice 581: risk-based inspection technology. 3rd ed.Washington (DC): American Petroleum Institute; 2016.
57.
BellavanceFDionneGLebeauM.The value of a statistical life: a meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model. J Health Econ. 2009; 28 (2): 444–464. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.10.013
58.
HashemiSJKhanFAhmedS.An insurance model for risk management of process facilities. Risk Anal. 2019; 39 (3): 713–728. doi: 10.1111/risa.13179
59.
DNV. DNV-RP-C302: risk based corrosion management. Apr. Høvik: Det Norske Veritas (DNV); 2012.
60.
American Petroleum Institute. API 510: pressure vessel inspection code: in-service inspection, rating, repair, and alteration. 10th ed.Washington (DC): American Petroleum Institute; 2014.
61.
American Petroleum Institute. API 570: piping inspection code: in-service inspection, repair, and alteration of piping systems. 3rd ed.Washington (DC): API; 2009.
62.
American Petroleum Institute. API STD 653: tank inspection, repair, alteration, and reconstruction. 5th ed.Washington (DC): API; 2014.
63.
CSA. CSA Z662-07: limit state equation for burst of large leaks and rupture for corrosion defect. Oil and gas pipeline systems. Mississauga: Canadian Standards Association; 2007.
64.
ISO. ISO 31000: risk management – principles and guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2009.
65.
ThodiPNKhanFIHaddaraMr.The development of posterior probability models in risk-based integrity modeling. Risk Anal. 2010; 30 (3): 400–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01352.x
66.
MetropolisNRosenbluthAWRosenbluthMN. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys. 1953; 21 (6): 1087–1092. doi: 10.1063/1.1699114
67.
HastingsW.Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika. 1970; 57 (1): 97–109. doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.1.97
68.
PaikJKKimSKLeeSK.Probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model for longitudinal strength members of bulk. Ocean Eng. 1998; 25 (10): 837–860. doi: 10.1016/S0029-8018(97)10009-9
