Pipeline corrosion risk analysis – an assessment of deterministic and probabilistic methods

Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 3-10

  Lawson, K ^a  

^a Enterprise House   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Corrosion; Pipelines; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; CORROSION; FAILURE (MECHANICAL); PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

PIPELINE CORROSION; PREDICTIVE MODELS; RISK ANALYSIS; UNCERTAIN DATAS;

PIPELINES;

CORROSION;

EID: 18844378402     PISSN: 00035599     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/00035590510574862     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. American Petroleum Institute (2000), 42nd ed., Specification for Line Pipe, API Specification 5L.
2. BOMEL Ltd for HSE (2001), “Probabilistic methods: uses and abuses in structural integrity”, Contract Research Report 298/2001.
3. Cizeli, L., Mavko, B. and Riesch-Opperman, H. (1994), “Application of first order and second order reliability methods in the safety assessment of cracked steam generator tubing”, Nuclear Engineering Design, Vol. 147.
4. 2 corrosion of carbon steel”, NACE/CORROSION '93, Paper Number 69.
5. Submarine Pipeline Systems (2003), DNV-OS-F101.
6. The Engineering Council (1993), Guidelines on Risk Issues,.
7. WS Atkins Consultants Ltd for HSE (2001), “Calculation of input data importance's for toxic release risk assessments: Gastar and Crunch”, Contract Research Report 338/2001.
8. WS Atkins Science & Technology for HSE (1997), “Use of FORM/SORM (most likely failure point) method for uncertainty analysis”, Contract Research Report 142/1997.
9. WS Atkins Science & Technology for HSE (1999), “Use of FORM/SORM (most likely failure point) method for quantitative risk assessments”, Contract Research Report 209/1999.