An Overview of the Reliability Based

Corrosion Analysis for ILI Data

Management

Advantages of the Annex O Type Process and General Approach

January 16, 2019

Prepared by:

Suite 208, 1324 – 17th Avenue S.W.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2T 5S8
Phone: (403) 547-8638
Fax: (403) 547-8628
Web: www.dynamicrisk.net
 Table of Contents
1. RELIABILITY BASED CORROSION ANALYSIS OVERVIEW.................................3
1.1. ADVANTAGES OF THE RBCA APPROACH...........................................................................3
1.1.1 Standardized Approach............................................................................................. 3
1.1.2 Inclusion of Risk Considerations...............................................................................3
1.2. PRACTICES OF OTHER CANADIAN OPERATORS..................................................................5
APPENDIX 1. RELIABILITY BASED CORROSION ASSESSMENT..........................6
A.1.1. STEP 1 - SEGMENTATION............................................................................................. 6
A.1.2. STEP 2 – PERFORM RELIABILITY CHECKS WITHIN THE SEGMENTS.................................6
APPENDIX 2. RBCA FLOW CHARTS.......................................................................11
A.2.1. RBCA001 – MAIN RBCA CALCULATION FLOW...........................................................11
A.2.2. RBCA002 – RELIABILITY TARGET CALCULATIONS.......................................................12
A.2.3. RBCA003 – CALCULATING POE AND DETERMINING FAILURE TYPE.............................13
A.2.4. RBCA004 – CALCULATING CONTIGUOUS PIPE SEGMENTS..........................................14
A.2.5. RBCA005 – SEGMENT SPECIFIC AND LOCATION SPECIFIC CHECKS............................15
A.2.6. RBCA006 – SEGMENT SPECIFIC AND LOCATION SPECIFIC CHECKS (BACKWARDS BOX)16
A.2.7. RBCA007 – Identifying Features for Repair.............................................................17

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 2 of 17

1. Reliability Based Corrosion Analysis Overview
The Reliability Based Corrosion Analysis (RBCA) is an Annex O type approach to
assessing ILI corrosion features. Although Annex O is designated as a non-mandatory
Annex, Clause O.1.1.1 states:
Where reliability-based design or assessment methods are used in accordance with the
provisions of Clauses 4.1.8 or 10.14.6, they shall be implemented according to the
provisions of this Annex.
This suggests that it is mandatory should reliability methods be utilized to perform
Engineering Assessments of the integrity of operating gas pipeline systems.
In the RBCA, a reliability-based method is one which demonstrates the structural
adequacy of a pipeline by making an explicit estimate of its reliability and comparing it to
a specified reliability target.
A description of the Annex O type process is provided in Appendix 1..

1.1. Advantages of the RBCA Approach

1.1.1 Standardized Approach

The biggest advantage that the adoption of RBCA has over traditional approaches is that
it represents an industry consensus approach that has been adopted by the governing
standard. In that regard, no justification is required as to why this approach has been
adopted for supporting any form of Engineering Assessment. In fact, it would be difficult
to justify why any alternative reliability-based approach had been adopted in favour of
Annex O. This is especially true in light of the fact that as is noted in Clause O.1.1.1,
Annex O must be used whenever reliability methods are used to conduct Engineering
Assessments in accordance with Clause 10.14.6.

1.1.2 Inclusion of Risk Considerations

The Reliability Targets employed in Annex O were derived on the basis of risk
considerations. In other words, segments of pipeline that are associated with greater
consequence exposure are held to a higher standard of reliability. This may be seen
from an examination of the segment-specific reliability target, RT:

Where,
 = population density (can be derived as a function of Class Location)
P = operating pressure (MPa); and,

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 3 of 17

 D = pipeline diameter
The term (PD3) in the segment-specific reliability target equations is proportional to the
combined [probability of ignition] and [thermal radiation consequence area]. Therefore,
the term (PD3) is proportional to public safety consequences in the event of an Ultimate
Limit State failure.
The segment-specific reliability target increases with increasing values of (PD3) (i.e.,
with increasing levels of public safety consequence). This is illustrated in Figure 1.
Therefore, a pipeline segment must have a greater degree of reliability (i.e., lower
likelihood of failure) in regions where public safety consequences are greater.
Figure 1
Segment-Specific Reliability Targets

1.1.2.1 Individual Risk and Societal Risk Considerations

Two separate sets of reliability criteria are included in the Risk Based Corrosion
Analysis. One reliability target is identified as segment-specific, RTSS, addresses
societal risk considerations. Segment specific reliability targets show the relationship
between frequency and the number of people suffering from a specified level of harm.
The other reliability target is identified as location-specific, RTLS, addresses the
frequency at which an individual may be expected to sustain a given level of harm.
These two risk criteria, societal risk and individual risk, form the basis of quantitative risk
evaluations. By incorporating both segment-specific and location-specific reliability
targets, the Annex O type procedure effectively addresses the individual risk
considerations that arise from localized threats associated with one or more ILI features
within a discrete location as well as the societal risk factors that arise from consideration
of ILI features over extended lengths of pipeline.

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 4 of 17

 1.2. Practices of Other Canadian Operators
Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc. is aware of the assessment practices of
another large Canadian natural gas transmission operator. That operator’s practice is to
conduct Engineering Assessments in accordance with a quantitative risk approach in
which they manage to pre-defined risk targets. For example, the target failure likelihood
level in a Class 1 location might be 10-4, whereas the target failure likelihood level in a
Class 3 location might be 10-6. This is effectively management to a societal risk target.
It is our understanding that this particular operator is in favour of revising the above
approach to one that is aligned with Annex O, but for the moment, they have yet to
modify their Engineering Assessment practices and algorithms to accommodate that
process.

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 5 of 17

 Appendix 1. Reliability Based Corrosion Assessment
A.1.1. Step 1 - Segmentation
A pipeline segment is defined as a pipeline length over which a single set of reliability
targets are used. Segmentation is based on diameter, operating pressure changes and
population density or applicable location class system. It is usually most convenient to
use class location instead of population density calculations.
A.1.2. Step 2 – Perform Reliability Checks within the Segments
Reliability checks are to be performed for each year for which ILI feature Probability of
Exceedance (POE) data are generated. The year-by-year reliability checks form the
basis for an annual excavation program. This is done by determining whether the
segment meets the reliability target for the year of analysis. For those segments that do
not meet the reliability target, ILI features are prioritized in descending order of their
contribution to lack of reliability. Features are then eliminated from the analysis (i.e.,
targeted for excavation) on an iterative basis and in that order of priority until the
segment meets the reliability target.
This process is further described in the following steps.

1.2.1. Step 2a – Perform Segment-Specific Checks

Case 1 – Contiguous Pipe Segment <= 1600 m

i. Designate the evaluation length of the Contiguous Pipe Segment, EL (meters)

ii. Or-gate the POE of all corrosion features designated as Leak features within the
segment (POELeak,Combined):

POE Leak, Combined  1   1  POE Leak,1   1  POE Leak,2   1  POE Leak,3   ...  1  POE Leak, n  
Equation 1

Where,
POELeak,i = The calculated probability of failure for leak feature i, for i=1-n

iii. Convert POELeak,Combined to an equivalent probability of Leak over a 1 km segment

(P(Leak/km.yr) ) by:

 1000 
 EL 

 1  1  POE   
P Leak/km.yr  Leak, Combined

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 6 of 17

 Equation 2

iv. Or-gate the POE of all corrosion features designated as Rupture features within
the segment (yielding POERupture,Combined):

POERupture,Combined  1   1  POERupture,1  1  POERupture,2   1  POERupture,3   ...  1  POERupture,n  

Equation 3

Where,
POERupture,i = The calculated probability of failure for rupture feature i, for i=1-n

v. Convert POERupture,Combined to an equivalent probability of Rupture over a 1 km

segment (P(Rupture/km.yr) ) by:
 1000 

P(Rupture/km.yr)  1  1  POE Rupture,Combined 

 
 EL 

Equation 4

vi. Perform reliability check in accordance with equation o-3 of Annex O:

 
1  c r  P Leak/km.yr   P Rupture/km.yr   R T

Equation 5

Where,
cr = the relative consequence between leaks and ruptures
7.5x10 5
 , cr  1
D3
D = outside diameter, mm
RT = Segment-specific reliability target

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 7 of 17

 = Population density
=0.04 (Class 1); 3.3 (Class 2); 18 (Class 3); 100 (Class 4)
P = MOP (MPa)

vii. Where the segment does not pass the above segment-specific reliability check,
perform an iterative routine where individual corrosion features are ranked in
descending order of POE. Leak features must be multiplied by cr before ranking.
Features are eliminated until the above segment-specific reliability check passes.
Features with the highest POE are targeted for repair first.

Case 2 – Contiguous Pipe Segment > 1600 m

1600 m Evaluation Interval

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9

Contiguous Pipe Segment Length

i. The process is exactly the same as Case 1 except that it occurs within each
distinct Evaluation Interval, EI (shown in yellow in the above diagram).

Define Distinct Evaluation Intervals

1. The evaluation length of each distinct evaluation interval shall be 1600m.
2. A number of distinct EI are defined within each Contiguous Pipe Segment.
3. In order to define the distinct EI, the EL is positioned with the start at
chainage 0 m and the end at chainage 1600 m.

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 8 of 17

 4. If any ILI features are contained within this evaluation length, this defines the
first distinct EI.
5. If no ILI features are contained within this evaluation length, the 1600 m
length is ‘slid’ along until the leading edge of the sliding 1600m length
encounters an ILI feature. This is now the 1st distinct evaluation interval.
6. After the first evaluation interval is defined, the 1600 m length is then ‘slid’
along the pipeline until a new ILI feature encounters the leading edge of the
1600 m length. This defines the 2nd distinct evaluation interval.
7. The process is repeated. Each time the leading edge of the 1600 m length
encounters a new ILI feature, a new evaluation interval is defined.
8. The process continues until the leading edge of the sliding 1600 m length
encounters the end of the class location segment.
9. At any time, the EI cannot be less than 1600m. In the event that it becomes
less, that distinct EI is discarded.

Perform Segment-Specific Reliability Checks on Each Distinct Evaluation

Interval
1. Calculate POELeak,Combined and POERupture,Combined for all features within each
Distinct Evaluation Interval
2. Utilizing Equation 2 and Equation 4, calculate PLeak/km.yr and PRupture/km.yr (note, L
in these equations is 1600 m)
3. Utilizing Equation 5, perform the reliability check. As with Case 1, an
Evaluation Interval which does not pass the reliability check must have ILI
features systematically eliminated on an iterative basis until the reliability
check passes. Each ILI feature that is eliminated is identified by cluster
number (or callbox number, as appropriate) and chainage along with the year
scheduled for excavation. The ILI features are then eliminated from the
analysis so that it doesn’t continue to be evaluated in subsequent years’
evaluation.

1.2.2. Step 2b – Perform Location-Specific Checks

i. calculate the location-specific evaluation length (LLS)as follows:

L LS  0.158  P  D 2

Equation 6
Where,
LLS = the length of the location-specific evaluation length in m
P = operating pressure in MPa
D = Diameter in mm

Case 1 – Length of Pipeline <= ELLS

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 9 of 17

 1. The process is exactly the same as that used for Case 1 for the Segment-
Specific case, with the exception that the reliability check is:

 
1  c r  P Leak/km.yr   P Rupture/km.yr   R TLS

Equation 7

Where,
RTLS = Location-specific Reliability Target

Case 2 – Length of Pipeline > ELLS

1. The process is exactly the same as Case 2 Contiguous Pipe Segment
except:
a. The evaluation length no longer equals 1600m, instead it is ELLS.
Therefore, replace ‘1600 m’ with ‘ELLS (m)’
b. The value ELLS must be substituted for EL in Equation 2 and Equation
4 when calculating (P(Leak/km.yr) ) and (P(Rupture/km.yr) )
c. The reliability check is as described in Case 1 Length of Pipeline <=
ELLS

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 10 of 17

Appendix 2. RBCA Flow Charts
RBCA001-RBCA007 outline the Reliability Based Corrosion Analysis, which determines
what features require repair in order to meet reliability targets.

A.2.1. RBCA001 – Main RBCA Calculation Flow

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 11 of 17

A.2.2. RBCA002 – Reliability Target Calculations

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 12 of 17

A.2.3. RBCA003 – Calculating POE and Determining Failure
Type

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 13 of 17

A.2.4. RBCA004 – Calculating Contiguous Pipe Segments

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 14 of 17

A.2.5. RBCA005 – Segment Specific and Location Specific
Checks

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 15 of 17

A.2.6. RBCA006 – Segment Specific and Location Specific
Checks (backwards box)

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 16 of 17

A.2.7. RBCA007 – Identifying Features for Repair

Privileged and Client Confidential Page 17 of 17