This template is provided to give authors a basic shell for preparing your

manuscript for submittal to an SPE meeting or event. Styles have been

included to give you a basic idea of how your finalized paper will look before
it is published by SPE. All manuscripts submitted to SPE will be extracted
from this template and tagged into an XML format; SPEs standardized styles
and fonts will be used when laying out the final manuscript. Links will be
added to your manuscript for references, tables, and equations. Figures and
tables should be placed directly after the first paragraph they are mentioned
in. The content of your paper WILL NOT be changed.

SPE-185212-MS

Tools for Pipeline Risk Assessment using PD8010:Part 3

L. Jiao, K.M. Suen, S.Y. Cheng, D. Alvarez, Lloyd's Register Asia

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social Responsibility Conference held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 4-6 April 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

of hazardous materials being transported, depth of cover,

Abstract
There exist a number of published sources in the public
domain where generic pipeline failure data consolidated
for various types of oil and gas pipeline applications can
be obtained. The main challenge of using these generic
failure databases is to make reasonable estimates of the
reduction factors applied in frequency calculation to
reflect the specific design of the pipeline. An
inappropriately chosen reduction factor can result in
overestimation or underestimation of risk arising from the
pipeline. It can also causes difficulties to pipeline
designers in justifying pipeline integrity. Using
PD8010:Part 3, detailed analysis of the historical pipeline
failure data were carried out and the contribution from
each design parameter was analysed. This provides a
realistic approach to calculate the extent of risk reduction
from each of the design parameters. Such an approach
allows the pipeline operator and designer to make or
support decisions on additional mitigation measures that
may be necessary to fulfil safety and compliance
requirements. Furthermore, it provides a quick guidance
to the project engineering team to determine the necessary
mitigation measures and associated costs for it in order to
mitigate the risks and demonstrate ALARP.
Introduction
Pipelines are commonly used for transportation of
hazardous materials, such as crude oil, natural gas, etc,
between plants or even countries. The pipelines can be
laid as aboveground or underground depending on site
conditions, safety and security requirements, feasibility,
operation requirements, environment parameters, etc.
Failure of the pipelines may potentially result in serious
safety and environmental impacts, depending on the type
operating conditions, area class around the point of
failure, release inventory, and environment conditions.
Therefore, pipeline design shall consider the risks arising
from the pipeline in the event of failure.
BSI has published a pipeline design code, PD8010:Part 1
[1] to guide the pipeline design. PD8010:Part 3 is a
guidance to carry out risk assessment for onshore
pipelines. It is closely related to PD8010:Part 1.
Typically, a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is
carried out to estimate the risk posed by the pipeline using
generic failure data published by various parties, such as
UKOPA [1], EGIG [2], US DOT [3], TNO [4], OGP [5],
etc. These published pipeline failure databases collect
historical failure data across different countries,
configuration and applications. The pipeline designer uses
the QRA results to improve the safety of the pipeline
design. Therefore, it is critical to understand the mode of
pipeline failure and how the pipeline safety is affected by
each design parameter. Most of the published pipeline
failure databases do not present detailed analysis of the
pipeline failures or how the pipeline safety is affected by
each design element, except UKOPA which is the basis
for the development of PD8010:Part 3 1 . Therefore, the
following sections of the paper are based on UKOPA and
PD8010:Part 3. It is not the intention of this paper to
compare various database and limitations of them, which
have been previously carried out by others [6, 7, 8]. The
focus of this paper is on how to use PD8010:Part 3 as a
tool to assist the operator or engineering team to improve
their pipeline design and to demonstrate ALARP.
1
PD8010:Part 3 is only applicable for underground
pipeline carrying flammable materials, either as gas or
liquid.
2 SPE-SPE-185212-MS-MS
According to the historical data [1], the main causes of
pipeline failure are:
external interference;
corrosion, either internal or external;
mechanical failure, including material or weld
defects created when the pipe was manufactured
or constructed;
ground movement, either natural or artificial; and
operational, due to overpressure, fatigue or
operation outside design limits.
PD8010:Part 3 [9] provides a correlation between each
design parameter and cause of failure to allow easy
calcuatlion of reduction factor for each cause of failure.
Pipeline failure data in Europe for the past 50 years [1]
shows the governing causes of failure are external
interference (21.9%), external corrosion (20.8%), others
(21.9%) and girth weld defects (18.2%).
88% (36 out of 41) of the incidents recorded in Others
relate to pipelines constructed before 1970 and are not
relevant to pipelines designed, constructed and operated
in accordance with current pipeline standards. 100% (34
out of 34) incidents recorded in girth weld defects
occurred in pipelines relates to pipeline constructed
before 1981 and 33 out of 34 of the failures were in
pipelines constructed before 1971. For this case, the
discussion of risk mitigation measures in this paper will
focus on engineering control measures to mitigate
external interference and external corrosion, which can be
compared with engineering and construction cost to
facilitate decision making.
Design Factors for Reduction of External
Interference
To mitigate the failure due to each cause, piplines hall be
defined with suitable design parameters with
consideration of operating requirements, location class,
material, cost, etc. Typical pipeline design parameters
affecting the pipeline failure frequencies include:
pipeline diameter;
pipeline wall thickness;
design factor;
depth of cover;
steel type and properties; and
location class (1 or 2).
Design Factor. The relationship between design factor
and reduction factor for external interference follows
exponential pattern as shown in Figure 1. Having a higher
design factor normally represent a lower margin between
operating pressure and design pressure, hence less or no
reduction in failure frequency is considered (e.g. =1 at
design factor of 0.72). This is due to that lower design
factor normally requires thicker wall for the same design
pressure.
Wall Thickness. It is apparent that pipes with thicker
wall are able to withstand higher external impact due to
3rd party activities, such as excavation. For the same pipe,
the reduction factor increases when a higher design factor
is used as it normally results in a thinner wall, as shown in
Figure 2.
(Note: Re-produced according to PD8010:Part 3, 2013)
Depth of Cover. Reduction factor reduces with increment
of depth of cover as shown in Figure 3, which means
buried pipes with thicker coverage have lower probability
of damage due to 3rd party activities. Typical depth of
cover of pipelines is about 1m [10].
Concrete Slab. At some crossings and in areas where the
likelihood of 3rd party activity leading to interference
with the pipe is increased, the use of impact protection is
recommended [10]. Past incident data and expert studies
showed concrete slab significantly reduced failure
frequency of pipeline due to external interference.
Therefore, a reduction factor of 0.1 is applied when
concrete slab is applied (when high visible marker tapes is
used together with concrete slab, it may be justifiable for
a lower reduction factor).
Design factors for Reduction of External
Corrosion
PD 8010:Part 3 published failure frequencies for pipelines
commissioned before 1980, as shown in Table 1.
For pipelines of wall thickness up to 15mm commissioned
after 1980 and with corrosion control procedures applied,
the corrosion failure frequency rate can be assumed to
reduce by a factor of 10. For pipelines of any age with
wall thickness greater than 15mm and with corrosion
control procedures in place, the corrosion failure
frequency can be assumed to be negligible.
Pipeline Installation Cost
For the purpose of determining if additional mitigation
measures is required to reduce the risk profile from the
pipeline installation, the following sections discuss the
estimated cost for each of the design parameter. The
intention of this section is to assist the engineers to justify
if using higher specification in design is justifiable in
senses of cost increment vs. risk reduction by using higher
specification in design, for example, if using design factor
of 0.3 is justifiable when code requires a design factor of
0.72.
The cost estimate below is based on the 24 gas pipeline.
Wall Thickness. Although design factor helps reduces
failure frequency of pipeline as shown in Figure 1, it
normally suggest change of wall thickness when applying
different design factors in pipeline design. Therefore, the
change of cost associated with design factor is same as
wall thickness. The cost of material at different wall
thickness for 24 pipeline is provided in Table 2.
Besides material cost, cost for civil work associated with
pipeline laying is provided in Table 3.
SPE-SPE-185212-MS-MS
Depth of Cover. The cost for depth of cover is incurred
due to the additional civil work, such as excavation,
backfilling after pipeline laying, etc. A comparison of cost
associated with depth of cover for 1.6m and 2.5m is
shown in Table 4.
Concrete Slab. The estimated material cost for concrete
slab with 100mm thickness (Grade 25) is about
US$18,200 per 1000m.
Corrosion Control. Corrosion control measures are
provided to the underground pipeline in the forms suitable
for the services and environment. They can be in the form
of:
Coating
Cathodic protection
Material selection
Corrosion allowance
As it is considered in all the pipelines
design in recent years, the cost for
corrosion control measures is not further
assessed and it is assumed that suitable
corrosion measures is always provided.
Risk Assessment
A risk assessment is carried out for an underground liquid
ammonia pipeline operated under cryogenic conditions
(Category E as per [10]).
The risk assessment focuses on the reduction of release
frequencies with and without application of mitigations.
The section provides a sample calculation to understand
how design factor affects the risk profiles arising from the
pipeline and to assist decision making by considering cost
aspects. This forms part of the Cost Benefit Analysis in
(CBA) the risk assessment.
As the consequences to the personnel and nearby assets
purely depends on the hazards of the materials, operating
conditions of the pipeline and pipe size, it may not make a
significant difference when failure occurs under different
pipeline design conditions, e.g. wall thickness, concrete
slab. Deeper coverage by soil may reduce the
consequences for small releases but it is difficult to justify
for large release or catastrophic failures.
For comparison purpose, the risk contours for difference
mitigation measures are generated using same process and
meteorological conditions, i.e. pressure, flow rate,
temperature, and wind speed.
Table 5 summarizes the cases that have been studied.
The individual risk profiles for 1x10-6/yr and 1x10-7/yr are
generated in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively.
The results shows that continuous 1x10-6/yr individual
risk contour is only generated for case 1; while the highest
individual risk level for case 2 to case 8 is 1x10-7/yr. This
represent that individual risks for Case 2 to Case 8 are
3
generally in the negligible region (lower than 1x10-6/yr);
and case 1 will generate individual risk higher than 1x10-
6
/yr (in the ALARP region).
For locations that have higher occupancy, case 1 design
will pose slightly higher risk to the personnel, but such
risk can be reduced by applying concrete slab (case 2) and
the associated cost is about USD18,200/km. Other
mitigative methods, such as deeper coverage to 2.5m or
thicker wall requires higher cost comparing with concrete
slab. As such, the result suggests concrete slab is the most
feasible option to reduce individual risk.
Conclusion
The new pipeline risk assessment [9] can be used as an
easy tool to carry out risk assessment for buried pipelines.
It provides valuable inputs to the operator and engineering
team to evaluate the potential risk reduction by comparing
various mitigation measures or a combination of different
mitigation measures and select the suitable measures
according to the results of cost benefit analysis. It shall be
noted that such assessment is only limited to frequency
reduction due to application of various mitigation
measures and assumes the consequence remain the same
in the event of loss of containment.
The tool also allows the consultant or engineer to select
the most cost effective design to reduce the risk to the
nearby zones arising from pipeline operation. Cost of
each mitigation measure is readily available from the
database of the engineering contractors. By providing the
risk assessment and calculate frequency reduction, hence
risk reduction, the tool allows the engineer to assess the
most practical masures to be adopted in pipeline design.
It is recognized PD8010:Part 3 is only applicable for
buried pipelines. Future research and studies may be
required for aboveground pipelines to allow similar
approach to be adopted in risk assessment and
engineering design.
Nomenclature
f design factor
t actual wall thickness (mm)
reduction factor
References
1. McConnell, R.A., and Haswell, J.V. 2012.
Pipeline Product Loss Incidents and Faults
Report (1962 2011). UKOPA/12/0046.
2. EGIG, 2015. 9th Report of the European Gas
Pipeline Incident Data Group (Period 1970
2013). EGIG 14.R.0403.
3. PHMSA, 2010.
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-
stats.
4. Uijt de Haag, P.A.M., and Ale, B.J.M. 2005.
Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment,
Purple Book, RVIM.
5. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
2010. Riser & Pipeline Release Frequencies,
OGP Risk Assessment Data Directory, Report
No. 434-4.
4 SPE-SPE-185212-MS-MS

6. Goodfellow, G., and Haswell, J. 2006. A

comparison of inherent risk levels in ASME
B31.8 and UK gas pipeline design codes, 6th
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, 25-
29 September
7. Goodfellow, R.D., Haswell, J.V., McConnel, R.,
and Jackson, N.W. 2008. Development of risk
assessment code supplements for the UK
pipeline codes IGE/TD/1 and PD8010, 7th
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, 29
September-3 October
8. Haswell, J.V., Goodfellow, G.D., Jackson, N.W.,
and McConnell, R. 2009. New UK Pipeline Risk
Assessment Codes IGEM TD/2 and PD 8010
Part 3, Hazards XXI Symposium Series No. 155:
308-317.
9. British Standards Institution 2013. Pipeline
System Part 3: Steel Pipeline on Land Guide
to application of pipeline risk assessment to
proposed developments in the vicinity of major
accident hazard pipelines containing flammables
Supplement to PD8010-1:2004. BSI PD8010-
3:2009+A1:2013.
10. British Standards Institute 2004. Code of
Practice for Pipelines Part 1: Steel Pipelines on
Land, BSI PD8010-1:2004.
SPE-SPE-185212-MS-MS 5

Appendix A: Cost Estimate for Pipeline Cost

S/N Description
Construction (US$)3
d Supply and lay 400mm thick
Table 1: Pipeline Failure Probability due to External Sub-Base
Corrosion
e Supply and lay 500mm thick
Sub-Grade
Pin Small Large
t (mm) Rupture Total
hole hole hole
Table 4: Comparison of cost for depth of cover at 1.6m
5 0.304 0.076 0 0 0.38 and 2.5m

>510 0.032 0.011 0.003 0 0.046 S/N Description Cost (US$)4

Case #1 - 1.6m cover above
>1015 0 0 0 0 0 pipe
1 Excavation
>15 0 0 0 0 0 a Pit excavation (n.e. 2m)
b Pit excavation (2m to 4m)
(Note: units in failure frequency per 1000 kmyr.) 2 Backfill
3 Temporary corrugated sheet
Table 2: Cost estimate of various wall thickness for 24
metal shoring
gas pipeline per 1000m
4 Breakup concrete pavement
S/N t (mm) 2 5 Reinstatement of road
Cost (US$)
a Milling and patching
1 10.3 542,100.00
b Supply and lay 120mm thick
2 11.1 556,700.00 803,800.00
Base Course (B1) with bitumen
3 11.9 570,500.00 additive
4 12.7 584,300.00 c Supply and lay 400mm thick
5 14.3 612,200.00 Base Course graded granite
6 15.9 640,000.00 aggregate to be laid in layers
7 17.5 685,200.00 d Supply and lay 400mm thick
8 19.1 712,100.00 Sub-Base
9 20.6 738,900.00 e Supply and lay 500mm thick
Sub-Grade
Table 3: Cost of civil work for pipeline laying per 1000m 6 Supply cost for steel pipe at
12.7mm thick
Cost
S/N Description
(US$)3 Case #2 - 2.5m cover above
1 Excavation pipe
a Pit excavation (n.e. 2m) 1 Excavation
b Pit excavation (2m to 4m) a Open excavation
2 Backfill b Pit excavation (n.e. 2m)
3 Temporary corrugated sheet c Pit excavation (2m to 4m)
metal shoring 2 Backfill
4 Breakup concrete pavement 3 Temporary corrugated sheet
5 Reinstatement of road 422,800 metal shoring
1,009,100.00
a Milling and patching 4 Breakup concrete pavement
b Supply and lay 120mm thick 5 Reinstatement of road
Base Course (B1) with bitumen a Milling and patching
additive b Supply and lay 120mm thick
c Supply and lay 400mm thick Base Course (B1) with bitumen
Base Course graded granite additive
aggregate to be laid in layers c Supply and lay 400mm thick

2
The cost is based on per 1000m length and for reference 4 The cost for 2.5m depth of cover is calculated based on
purpose only. trench dimension of 1000mx3.2mx3.1m (LxWxH), while
3 The cost is based on the trench size of 1000x1.4x2.2 the cost for 1.6m depth of cover is calculated based on
(LxWxH). trench dimension of 1000mx1.4mx2.2m (LxWxH).
6 SPE-SPE-185212-MS-MS

S/N Description Cost (US$)4 Wall Thickness vs. Reduction Factor

Base Course graded granite 1
aggregate to be laid in layers e-0.24(t-5) f=0.72
= e-0.31(t-5) f=0.5
d Supply and lay 400mm thick 0.8
e-0.39(t-5) f=0.3
Sub-Base

Reduction Factor ()
e Supply and lay 500mm thick Design Factor=0.72
0.6
Sub-Grade Design Factor=0.5
6 Supply cost for steel pipe at Design Factor=0.3
0.4
12.7mm thick
Additional Cost for 2.5m 205,300
depth of cover 0.2

0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Appendix B: Calculation of Reduction Factors
Table 5: Summary of cases and total release frequencies Wall Thickness (mm)
Figure 2: Reduction factor for external interference at
Total various wall thickness
Depth of Concrete
Case t Release
cover Slab
No. (mm) Frequency
(m) (Y/N) Depth of Cover vs. Reduction Factor
(/km-year) 2
1 N 2.94E-05 1.8
1.6
2 Y 2.48E-05 1.6
12.7
3 N 2.75E-05 Reduction Factor ()
1.4
2.5
4 Y 2.45E-05 1.2
5 N 2.76E-05 1
1.6
6 Y 2.45E-05 0.8
14.3
7 N 2.63E-05 0.6
2.5
8 Y 2.43E-05 0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Design Factor vs. Reduction Factor
1.00 Depth of Cover (m)
Figure 3: Reduction factor for external interference at
various depth of cover

(Note: Re-produced according to PD8010:Part 3, 2013)

0.80
Reduction Factor ()

Appendix C: Risk Results

= Exp(0.97(x-0.72))
Figure 4: Risk profile (1x10-06/yr) for all cases

0.60

0.40
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
Design Factor
Figure 1: Reduction factor for external interference at
various design factors

(Note: Re-produced according to PD8010:Part 3, 2013)

Figure 5: Risk profile (1x10-07/yr) for all cases
SPE-SPE-185212-MS-MS 7