Risk assessment of corrosion in oil and gas pipelines using fuzzy logic

Abstract

Failure of pressurised pipe is a potentially significant hazard to people and the environment. Corrosion is one of the main causes of failures in pipelines. Corrosion is often accompanied by a high degree of uncertainty, since it is a dynamic process, and its rate does not follow a typical mathematical law in a lot of cases. There are various methodologies used to assess risks to pipeline integrity. Probability based models are the most complex, requiring substantial amounts of data for proper development. Fuzzy logic provides an easy way of dealing with complex problems because it can be built with fuzzy models containing vagueness and impreciseness in knowledge representation. A combination of fuzzy logic theory and expert judgement can be used to accomplish the modelling of the probability and severity of consequences. This paper presents the possibility of the use of fuzzy logic to assess the risk of corrosion in natural gas pipelines.

Keywords

Fuzzy logic Risk assessment Corrosion Pipeline

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

US Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety: ‘Accident summary statistics by year’ www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline (read 10 May 2011).

Papadakis

: J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 1999 12 91–107.

Biezma

M. V.

and Cristóbal

J. R. San

: Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2005 40 344–352.

Roberge

P. R.

: ‘Corrosion engineering: principles and practice’519; 2008

New York

McGraw-Hill.

Sastri

V. S.

Ghali

and Elboujdaini

: ‘Corrosion prevention and protection’331; 2007

New York

Wiley.

Biezma

M. V.

and San Cristobal

J. R.

: Corrosion 2006 62, 1051-1055.

Stewart

M. G.

and Melchers

R. E.

: ‘Probabilistic risk assessment of engineering systems’; 1997

London

Chapman and Hall.

Dingus

Haven

and Austin

: ‘Nondestructive, noninvasive assessment of underground pipelines’; 2002

Denver, CO

AWWA Research Foundation.

Shafeek

Gadelmawla

E. S.

Abdel-Shafy

A. A.

and Elewa

I. M.

: NDT&E Int. 2004 37 291–299.

10.

Cosham

and Macdonald

K. A.

: Eng. Fail. Anal. 2005 12 720–745.

11.

Dziubinski

Fratczak

and Markowski

: J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2006 19 399–408.

12.

San Cristóbal

J. R.

and Biezma

M. V.

: Proc. 14th Cong. of International Maritime Association of Mediterranean

IMAM

Genoa, Italy September 2011 The International Congress of International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean and the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Genoa683–687.

13.

Obery

A. M.

and Landis

W. G.

: Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2002 8 405–428.

14.

Mustaffa

and van Gelder

: Proc. 20th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf. Beijing, China June 2010 International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers626–632.

15.

Yuhua

and Datao

: J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2005 18 83–88.

16.

Lakoff

: J. Philos. Logic 1973 2 458–508.

17.

Terano

Asai

and Sugeno

: ‘Fuzzy systems theory and its applications’; 1992

San Diego, CA

Academic Press Inc.

18.

Zadeh

L. A.

: Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1999 100 9–34.

19.

Bellman

R. E.

and Zadeh

L. A.

: Manag. Sci. 1970 17 141–164.

20.

Lau

H. C. W.

and Dwight

R. A.

: Expert Syst. Appl. 2011 38 (10) 13342–13350.

21.

Gutierrez-Solana

Gonzalez

Varona

J. M.

and Biezma

M. V.

: Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. on ‘Fracture, structural integrity: experiments, models and applications’ Berlin, Germany September 1994

FRG

659–668.

22.

Gutierrez-Solana

Gonzalez

Varona

J. M.

and Biezma

M. V.

: Corros. Sci. 1993 35 499–506.

23.

Biezma

M. V.

: Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2001 26 515–520.