The University of Manchester Research

Reliability Engineering Application to Pipeline Design

DOI:
10.1108/IJQRM-09-2017-0197

Document Version
Accepted author manuscript

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):

Omoya, O., Papadopoulou, K., & Lou, E. C. W. (2019). Reliability Engineering Application to Pipeline Design.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2017-0197

Published in:
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Citing this paper

Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript
or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the
publisher's definitive version.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the
authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown
Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing
relevant details, so we can investigate your claim.

Download date:03. May. 2022

 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
na
ti o
na
lJ
ou
Reliability Engineering Application to Pipeline Design

Journal: International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

rn
Manuscript ID IJQRM-09-2017-0197.R3

Manuscript Type: Reliability Paper

al

Reliability centred design, reliability centred maintenance, failure centred

Keywords:
design, Oil and Gas, Pipleines, Pipeline Integrity
of

Abstract:
Qu
ali
ty
&
Re
lia
bi
lity
M
an
a ge

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
 Page 1 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
1
ati
2
3
4
5 Reliability Engineering Application to Pipeline Design
on
6
7
8 Abstract
al
9
10
Purpose - This paper investigates the application of reliability engineering to oil and gas
11
Jo
12 pipeline systems with the aim of identifying means through which reliability engineering can
13
14 be used to improve pipeline integrity, specifically with regards to man-made incidents (e.g.
ur
15
16 material/weld/equipment failure, corrosion, incorrect operation, excavation damages).
17
na

18 Methodology – A literature review was carried out on the application of reliability tools to oil
19
20 and gas pipeline systems and four case studies are presented as examples of how reliability
lo

21
22 engineering can help to improve pipeline integrity. The scope of the paper is narrowed to four
23
24
stages of the pipeline life cycle, the decommissioning stage is not part of this research. A
fQ

25 survey was also carried out using a questionnaire to check the level of application of reliability
26
27 tools in the oil and gas industry.
28
ua

29 Findings – Data from survey and literature shows that a reliability centred approach can be
30
31 applied and will improve pipeline reliability where applied, however, there are several
lity

32
33 hindrances to the effective application of reliability tools, the current methods are time-based
34
35 and focus mainly on design against failure rather than design for reliability.
36
&R

37 Limitations/implications – The tools identified do not cover the decommissioning of the

38
pipeline system. Research validation sample size can be broadened to include more pipeline
39
40 stakeholders/professionals. Pipeline integrity management systems are proprietary
eli

41
42 information and permission is required from stakeholders to do a detailed practical study.
43
ab

44 Originality/Value -This paper proposes the minimum applied reliability tools for application
45
46 during the design, operation and maintenance phases targeted at the oil and gas industry.
47
ilit

48
Critically, this paper provides a case for an integrated approach to applying reliability and
49 maintenance tools that are required to reduce pipeline failure incidents in the oil and gas
50
y

51 industry.
52
Ma

53 Paper type – Research Paper

54
55
56 Keywords
na

57
58 Reliability centred design, reliability centred maintenance, failure centred design, oil and gas,
59
60 pipeline, pipeline integrity
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 2 of 46
rn
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9
10 Introduction
11
Jo
12
13 Background: Importance of Pipelines
14
The world has over 2 million kilometres of oil and gas (O&G) pipeline with several
ur
15
16 key routes transporting various products (Central Intelligence Agency, 2017); amongst
17
these are O&G products that are transported between regions, countries and continents
na

18
19 using these pipelines. USA has over 2,000,000km, Europe has over 400,000km and Africa
20 has around 50,000km of pipelines. Consequently, with increasing energy demands
lo

21
22 around the world and with O&G being the primary source of energy, pipelines are
23 becoming increasingly important. The US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA)
24
fQ

25
World Energy Outlook predicts a global liquid and natural gas consumption rise from
26 about 55 to 80 billion barrel of oil equivalent (BBOE) by 2050 as demonstrated in Figure
27 1 (Energy Information Administration, 2017). According to ExxonMobil’s energy outlook
28
ua

29 forecasts, global demand for energy is expected to climb about 25% by 2040 and would
30 soar significantly higher – closer to a 100 percent increase – but for anticipated efficiency
31
gains across the economy (ExxonMobil, 2017). To support the growth in demand,
lity

32
33 pipeline infrastructure is anticipated to grow 7% in the next 15 years, which translates
34 to 8,000km/year and on an international level, 32,000km of new pipelines are
35
36 constructed annually with a value of US$28 billion (Hopkins, 2007). In the USA, there
&R

37 was a pipeline investment of $101biliion between 2012-2016 and a capital expenditure

38
39
of $2.3 to $3.7billion per year till 2035 is projected to meet energy demands (American
40 Petroleum Institute, 2017).
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 3 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
3
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9
10
11
Jo
12
13
14
ur
15
16
17
na

18
19
20
lo

21
22
23
24
fQ

25 Figure 1: Energy Demand Forecast by Source and The Global Energy Mix (EIA, 2017)
26
27 Background: Pipeline Failure
28
ua

29
However, the safety of O&G pipelines remains a sticky point due to the effect of
30
31 pipeline failure on human life, the environment and other infrastructure. Figure 2 shows
lity

32 the effects of pipeline failure over the last 20 years in terms of fatalities and injuries in
33
34 the USA alone. Figure 3 shows the monetary cost of these incidents in terms of the value
35 of the properties damaged. From Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
36
&R

37
Administration’s (PHMSA) data, it can be concluded that pipeline integrity remains a
38 critical issue because pipeline incidents cost an average of US$414 million plus the
39 fatalities and injuries due to its failure every year. More so, Europe had a total of 1309
40
incidents between 1970 and 2013 for gas pipelines alone (European Gas Pipeline
eli

41
42 Incident Group, 2015).
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 4 of 46
rn
4
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9
10
11
Jo
12
13
14
ur
15
16
17
na

18
19
20
lo

21
22
23 Figure 2: Trend for Pipeline Incidents from 1997-2016 ( PHMSA, 2017).
24
fQ

25
26
27
28
ua

29
30
31
lity

32
33
34
35
36
&R

37
38
39
40
eli

41 Figure 3: Cost of Pipeline Failure from 1997-2016 ( PHMSA, 2017).

42
43
ab

44 Despite these short comings, O&G pipelines remain the most efficient and
45
46
effective mode of fluid transportation when compared with rail or road transport.
47 Statistics from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association CEPA shows that their network
ilit

48 of pipelines transports an equivalent of 15,000 lorries and 4200 rail cars in a day
49
50 (Canadian Energy Pipeline Asociation, 2014). From a safety aspect, pipelines remain the
y

51 safest mode of transportation of O&G products, when comparing pipeline failure

52
statistics with other modes of transportation of O&G, it is shown that natural gas
Ma

53
54 pipelines have an incident rate of 0.89 incidents per billion tonne-miles compared to
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 5 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
5
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 road and railway which have a rate of 19.95 and 2.08 respectively (Furchtgott-Ruch,
10
11 2013).
Jo
12 Data from the USA shows that more than 80% of pipeline incidents are man-
13 made ( PHMSA, 2017). As seen in Figure 4, out of 11,761 pipeline incidents that
14
happened between 1998 and 2017, only 18% are due to natural causes and other
ur
15
16 unknown causes. The causes of failure include material/weld/equipment failure,
17
corrosion, incorrect operation, excavation damages, which account for 33%, 18%, 8%
na

18
19 and 15% respectively. This paper focuses on how these man-made forms of failure of
20
O&G pipeline systems can be prevented or reduced by applying reliability tools at
lo

21
22 different stages of the pipeline lifecycle.
23
24
fQ

25
26
27
28
ua

29
30
31
lity

32
33
34
35
36
&R

37
38
39
40
eli

41
42
43
Figure 4: Causes of Pipeline Incidents between 1998-2017 (PHMSA, 2018)
ab

44
45 Reliability engineering methods
46
47 At this point, it is important to provide the definition of reliability which is ‘the
ilit

48 probability that a system will perform its functions under certain environmental
49
50 conditions over a specified period’ (Andrews & Moss, 2002). Reliability engineering aims
y

51 at developing methods and tools to predict, evaluate and improve the Reliability,
52
Maintainability, Availability and Safety (RAMS) of a system (Birolini, 2007). It is a
Ma

53
54 combination of Reliability Testing & Data Analysis, Failure Analysis and Design for
55 Reliability (DFR) as illustrated in Figure 5 (Lau, et al., 2003). Engineering Design by
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 6 of 46
rn
6
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Reliability (EDBR) is a critical concept in design because it is at the design phase in the
10
11 life of a product that the engineer can include features that will improve the reliability
Jo
12 of a system (Kececioglu, 2003). Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) (Moubray, 1997)
13 also helps to maintain the reliability of the system above a certain reliability threshold.
14
ur
15
16
17
na

18
19
20
lo

21
22
23
24
fQ

25
26
27
28
ua

29
30
31 Figure 5: Illustration of Reliability Engineering approach (Lau, et al., 2003).
lity

32
33
34 Reliability engineering tools for Oil and Gas Pipelines
35
36 There are several reliability tools that can be applied to oil and gas pipeline
&R

37 systems (Birolini, 2007), it is an engineer’s responsibility to understand each tool and

38
39 how they can be applied to improve the reliability of a product. Ossai uses life data
40 analysis (Monte Carlo simulation) to predict the time to failure for corroded pipelines
eli

41
(Ossai, 2013), Ahmed et al. propose the use reliability block diagrams to improve the
42
43 accuracy of Monte Carlo simulation (Ahmed, et al., 2016), Petrovskiy et al. propose the
ab

44 application of Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis (FMEA & FMECA) for
45
46 identifying both risks and hazards (Petrovskiy, et al., 2015), Hazard Operability Analysis
47 (HAZOP) and Hazard Identification (HAZID) are applied across several industries
ilit

48
including Oil and Gas, Anjumna et al. propose the use of fuzzy logic along with bow-tie
49
50 analysis (Anjumna, et al., 2012), Abaqus and other software tools are used as simulation
y

51 tools, Non Destructive Testing (NDT) techniques are used for accelerated testing and
52
measurement, Structural Reliability Assessment (SRA) is used to determine the
Ma

53
54 structural reliability of a pipeline system in DNV codes and other pipeline codes. Other
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 7 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
7
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 tools include root cause analysis (RCA), Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action
10
11 Systems (FRACAS), to mention a few.
Jo
12
13 Reliability optimisation
14
ur
15 Applying these tools comes at a cost to the system, this means that the engineer
16
must find the optimal solution between designs based on performance, cost, safety and
17
na

18 maintainability of pipeline systems. Figure 6 shows the relationship between reliability

19 and cost, the initial cost of a product increases with increasing reliability but the post
20
implementation cost decreases with increasing reliability. In other words, a product with
lo

21
22 both low and high reliability will have a high total cost because either the initial cost or
23
24
post implementation cost will be too high. Mathematically, this relationship is shown in
fQ

25 the two cases below.

26
27
28 Case 1: Low Reliability → Low Initial Cost → High Post Implementation Cost
ua

29 Case 2: High Reliability → High Initial Cost → Low Post Implementation Cost
30
31
lity

32 Therefore, the optimal solution between cost and reliability will be at the lowest
33
point on the total cost curve; the optimum reliability is therefore not necessarily the
34
35 highest achievable reliability but a balance of cost and reliability, finding the optimum
36 reliability for the system which combine the multiple objectives of design (design,
&R

37
38 performance, safety and maintainability).
39
40
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55 Figure 6: Cost Implication of Reliability (O'Connor & Kleyner, 2012).
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 8 of 46
rn
8
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Methodology
10
11 The methodology used in this paper has two main parts; initially by collecting
Jo
12 secondary data in a form of a literature review (see Figure 7), then by collecting primary
13
14 data through a questionnaire format.
ur
15 The literature review consisted of initially reviewing a literature of 70 papers in
16
the theme of reliability tools applied to O&G pipeline systems. Data from the PHMSA
17
na

18 were used for this paper to create graphs which would aid to identify the causes of
19 pipeline failure that would be integrated with the findings from the questionnaire
20
survey. The reliability tools were searched using the university online library and Google
lo

21
22 Scholar search engine with focus on keywords such as: reliability, reliability engineering,
23
reliability tools, these provided a broad range results of the reliability engineering field.
24
fQ

25 Then, a focus was drawn on reliability tools for oil and gas pipelines by combining the
26 keywords above with ‘oil and gas pipelines’ (e.g. reliability tools for oil and gas pipelines),
27
28 from these a broad set of literature was obtained. Finally, four of some of the tools
ua

29 identified are discussed as case studies to show that reliability tools can be applied to
30
31
the life cycle stages of design, operation and maintenance of pipeline systems. The
lity

32 methodology for reviewing the reliability tools is presented in Figure 7. In reviewing the
33 literature, the following questions were asked:
34
35  Is this tool applicable to O&G pipelines?
36  What stage of the lifecycle can this be applied?
&R

37
38  What solutions do these tools proffer?
39  What are the limitations of these models?
40
 What can be done to improve them?
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 9 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
9
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9
10
11
Jo
12
13
14
ur
15
16
17
na

18
19
20
lo

21
22
23
24
fQ

25
26
27
28
ua

29
30 Figure 7 Methodology for literature review of reliability tools.
31
lity

32 From these, several issues were identified and recommended for further
33
34 research work. As the research proceeded, the question of whether these tools where
35 applied in the industry came to the fore. Following that, a survey in a format of
36
&R

37
questionnaire was used as a research instrument, the objective was to evaluate the level
38 of application of reliability tools in the O&G industry. The questionnaire was self-
39 administered, i.e. it was designed to be completed by a participant without the
40
researcher’s intervention. The questionnaire was structured in a pre-formulated and
eli

41
42 pre-determined written set of questions. This was considered as an effective data
43
collection mechanism as the researchers knew precisely what was required for the data
ab

44
45 collection. The questions were constructed in a manner to determine the level of
46 application of reliability tools by the pipeline engineers. The first part of the survey
47
ilit

48 consisted of demographic type of questions about the participant and their experience,
49 then in the second part the questions focused on findings from the review of literature
50
about the subject matter and the problems associated with the application of reliability
y

51
52 tools to oil and gas pipeline systems. The survey responses were obtained by contacting
Ma

53 O&G engineers via email, the survey responses further validate findings from the
54
55 literature review and bring to fore certain issues with applying reliability tools to oil and
56 gas pipeline systems. The questionnaire was aimed at getting qualitative data about
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 10 of 46
rn
10
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 reliability engineering application to O&G pipelines. The questions were asked without
10
11 providing options so that the participants draw on their own knowledge and experience
Jo
12 about the subject matter, however, a list of reliability tools was provided for the
13 responders to have an idea of what those reliability tools are; there are 11 questions
14
aimed at pipeline design, operation and maintenance. The questionnaire is available in
ur
15
16 the Appendix A. Verification were conducted through qualitative interviews as it
17
provides further context and explanation on the results. Experts were current pipeline
na

18
19 designers and operators from various O&G producing countries. The data were analysed
20
by manual content analysis.
lo

21
22
23 Case studies review
24
fQ

Four of the case studies reviewed are presented from a review of 70 academic
25
26 papers, these case studies focus on the application of the FTA, reliability modelling and
27 data analysis. The case studies point out the problems of reliability tools application and
28
ua

29 provide solutions to some of these problems showing the relevance of reliability tools
30 to pipeline design, operation and maintenance.
31
lity

32
33
Case study 1: The Failure Expansion Tree (FET)
34 The Failure Expansion Tree (FET) (Lin, et al., 2014) aims to improve the traditional
35
36
FTA methodology, which has been shown to have various application problems. The FET
&R

37 is built on six main principles, which are created to avoid the problems of the traditional
38 FTA which includes subjectivity, mutually inclusive events (repetition of failure events at
39
40 different levels) and collectively in-exhaustive failure events (exclusion of some possible
eli

41 failure events).
42
43 The FTA provides quantitative (ranking of failure events) and qualitative analysis
ab

44 (determining what basic events can lead to a top event) of a system. With a well
45 modelled FTA, an engineer can determine the root causes of failure and quantitatively
46
47 determine which failure events are most likely to occur and thus focus on them during
ilit

48 design with the aim of preventing them. The FET solves the problem of inexhaustible
49
50 failure modes by accounting for events which cannot be identified as ‘other’ failure
y

51 modes, this occurs across several levels of the FET. This leaves room for the FET to be
52 expanded to include such rare events which cannot be done with the traditional FTA.
Ma

53
54 This ensures that every level of the FET is collectively exhaustive. In addition, it solves
55 the problem of subjectivity of the traditional FTA. When multiple number of engineers
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 11 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
11
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 are trying to build an FTA, they are most likely going to come up with multiple models
10
11 of FTA for the same product or system. The FET solves this problem by focusing on the
Jo
12 physics of failure, by doing this, the multiple number of engineers are likely to come up
13 with the same FET because the physics of failure is the same across all levels.
14
Furthermore, the FET solves this problem by making the events mutually exclusive, thus
ur
15
16 at whatever level the event is on the FET, it will produce the same probability of
17
occurrence (failure probability). This is not the case with the FTA where the failure
na

18
19 probability for an event depends on the level of the event. A practical example
20
presented in the paper (Lin, et al., 2014).
lo

21
22 Grouping the pipelines under several phases (useful life, infant mortality and
23 wear out) as used in the FET will help in understanding the cause of pipeline failure. An
24
fQ

25 example is the analysis done by Azevedo in which the pipeline was said to have corroded
26 because of the wrong selection of the insulation used in the pipeline (Azevedo, 2007); a
27
problem of manufacturing classified under infant mortality.
28
ua

29 The FET is a more effective tool than FTA because its focuses on the physics of
30 failure, this ensures that considerable attention is given to the system itself rather than
31
lity

32 the method used in creating the system. Hence, an engineer can identify the possible
33 failure modes of the system and is more objective. Also, it provides the advantage of
34
being collectively exhaustive, mutually exclusive at all levels.
35
36
&R

37 Case study 2: The Condition-Based Fault Tree Analysis (CBFTA)

38
39
The Condition-Based Fault Tree Analysis (CBFTA) is a special FTA that improves
40 on the FTA by applying a condition monitoring system that makes it a design tool as well
eli

41 as an operation and maintenance tool. Figure 8 compares the CBFTA and the FTA. The
42
43 tool was created by Shalev and Tiran and applied to a two-pump system (Shalev & Tiran,
ab

44 2007). The tool updates reliability values for a system and calculates the residual life,
45
46
this is done periodically to ensure reliability is above control limit. However, the first
47 question is whether the tool can be applied to O&G pipelines. The conditions stated for
ilit

48 its application are:

49
50 1. The critical components failure is a step by step deterioration process, which can be
y

51 divided into predefined recognisable stages.

52
2. The detection of each stage is possible by using a measurement device and
Ma

53
54 observation.
55 3. For each failure stage, the residual time to failure is definable.
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 12 of 46
rn
12
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9
10
11 The authors believe that the tool can be used because all these conditions are
Jo
12 fulfilled by an O&G pipeline system. Pipeline systems are composed of several
13 components and the failure of its components is responsible for most pipeline failures (
14
PHMSA, 2017), corrosion is the second highest cause of pipeline failures. These modes
ur
15
16 of failure (equipment failure and corrosion) can be monitored to identify the step by
17
step deterioration of the entire pipeline system and the detection of each stage of
na

18
19 deterioration is possible by using measurement devices. The evaluation of the residual
20
time to failure is also possible, as shown by Zhou, where he evaluates the failure
lo

21
22 probabilities of a pipeline with corrosive defects. From this, the reliability of the pipeline
23 system and the time before failure can be determined using textbook reliability methods
24
fQ

25 (Zhou, 2010).
26 Two things are key in the application of this tool, condition monitoring (CM) and
27
predictive maintenance (PdM); these are the solutions applied to the FTA to form the
28
ua

29 CBFTA making it an applicable real time operative system analysis (Shalev & Tiran, 2007).
30 Furthermore, the CBFTA does not only help determine the reliability of the system but
31
lity

32 also helps to determine the optimal path for operation of the system with spare
33 components as illustrated in the paper by Shalev and Tiran. This makes it both an
34
operation and maintenance tool. The CBFTA combines the statistical data of the FTA and
35
36 the CM data for reliability monitoring and control.
&R

37
38
39
40
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47 Figure 8: Comparison of the CBFTA and the traditional FTA method (Shalev & Tiran,
ilit

48
2007)
49
50 However, one of the biggest issues with O&G pipelines is their accessibility for
y

51 CM. This leaves design and operations engineers with the work of coming up with a list
52
of variables which can be monitored and used to calculate the reliability of the pipeline
Ma

53
54 system. Shalev and Tiran provide an example of how this can be carried out on a two-
55
pump system in their study. The problem of availability of historical data about a system
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 13 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
13
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 for determining the failure probability of basic events of the FTA remains (Shalev & Tiran,
10
11 2007).
Jo
12
13 Case study 3: Reliability Prediction Tool, Split System Approach (SSA)
14
This tool predicts the reliability of a complex system by using a Split System
ur
15
16 Approach (SSA), as reported by Sun et al. It identifies the complexity of pipeline system
17
and solves the problem by applying the SSA (Sun, et al., 2009), it also predicts the
na

18
19 reliability of a pipeline system that has been maintained using preventive maintenance
20 (PM). The model was created to solve the problems of reliability models that do not
lo

21
22 account for the complexity of a pipeline system and the impact of PM actions on system
23 reliability (Sun, et al., 2009). Some questions from the analysis of this case study are:
24
fQ

25
 Does the repair of the repaired part affect the unrepaired part of the pipeline?
26  What is the methodology for determining the recovery coefficient?
27
 How is the reliability determined at any time, T, when there is no PM work carried
28
ua

29 out?
30  What is the difference between Time Based Preventive Maintenance (TBPM) and
31
lity

32 Reliability Based Preventive Maintenance (RBPM)?

33 Firstly, the exposed pipeline is assumed to be the only part that is preventively
34
35
maintained in all PM actions and the reliability functions of the repaired pipes are
36 assumed to be known (Sun, et al., 2009). This is a limitation of this tool because it needs
&R

37 to be modified for cases when the buried part of the pipeline is repaired or both parts
38
39 of the pipeline are repaired because at some point in the life of a pipeline, PM actions
40 might need to be carried out on buried sections. However, the advantage of this tool is
eli

41
42
that it provides the SSA which distinguishes the repaired section from the unrepaired
43 section of the pipeline system.
ab

44 Another limiting assumption is that the failure of the repaired part is assumed to
45
46 be independent of the unrepaired part (Sun, et al., 2009). While the authors understand
47 the need for this assumption in simplifying the model, this is not the case practically.
ilit

48
49
The failure of a section of the pipeline will impact the reliability of the other sections of
50 the pipeline, for example a pressure increase due to failure of a section of the pipeline
y

51 will increase stresses on the other sections which will affect the strength of that section
52
and other conditions hence the reliability. This is a problem because not knowing the
Ma

53
54 reliability of the unrepaired section of the pipeline means that the reliability of the entire
55
56 pipeline is assumed to be constant (Sun, et al., 2009). This shows the importance of
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 14 of 46
rn
14
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 having CM methods for knowing the reliability of any pipeline section. However,
10
11 knowing the reliability of the pipeline in operation remains one of the biggest issues of
Jo
12 reliability engineering (Blanks, 1992). It should be noted that the analysis done by Sun
13 et al. indicates that if the recovery factor is reduced to zero the entire pipeline was still
14
in a state of imperfect repair (Sun, et al., 2009). This makes the model a valid one
ur
15
16 because it is known that maintenance work never restores the pipeline to its original
17
reliability, this means that repair work is always imperfect.
na

18
19 Another important point is that it can be applied to a system with a known
20
reliability function. This must be determined during the design phase. This shows the
lo

21
22 importance of a reliability centred approach to design, DFR and EDBR models are at the
23 foundation of reliability engineering application in operation and maintenance. Hence,
24
fQ

25 the SSA model can be used also in the design phase to give a realistic reliability of the
26 system that takes the complexity of a pipeline system into account. It serves as a model
27
that can help a designer as well as operation and maintenance personnel to accurately
28
ua

29 predict the reliability of the entire pipeline system and to determine what kind of PM
30 strategies can be utilised to prolong the life of the pipeline. The application of the tool
31
lity

32 to a real-life system gives more credibility to it, the result of this shows that a RBPM
33 strategy is more effective for pipeline maintenance when compared with TBPM.
34
35
Case study 4: A System for Corroded pipelines
36
&R

37 This case study presented the ‘system reliability for corroded pipelines’, a
38
39
suitable tool for brownfield engineering in O&G pipelines (Zhou, 2010). Most issues of
40 pipeline integrity and safety come from already existing pipelines because they are old
eli

41 designs in which improvements in pipeline design from failure analysis cannot be

42
43 applied. It is a simulation tool. The initial size of the defects (e.g. a large initial defect size
ab

44 lowers the reliability in comparison to a small initial defect size), the defect growth rates
45
46
and the spatial variability of the internal pressure were found to affect the reliability of
47 the pipeline. Hence, in a brownfield system for a given pipeline with limited resources,
ilit

48 this would provide a maintenance programme aiming at maintaining a minimum

49
50 acceptable reliability level ( PHMSA, 2017). This model proves that there are certain
y

51 physical variables which can be monitored to determine the stages of deterioration of

52
the pipeline system (a requirement of Case Study 2). Zhou applies this tool to an existing
Ma

53
54 pipeline and finds the relationship between various variables (Zhou, 2010). The failure
55 probabilities gotten from the application of this tool can be used to determine the
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 15 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
15
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 reliability of the entire pipeline system. One of the solutions this tool provides is that it
10
11 is modelled for a small leak, rupture and large leak. This makes it versatile for different
Jo
12 modes of failure known to pipelines.
13 Pipeline engineers and operators need a method for evaluating the reliability of
14
an existing pipeline system. The corrosion of a pipeline system can only be slowed down
ur
15
16 but cannot be prevented, old pipelines have multiple defects and this tool will serve to
17
help detect probability of failure and hence a reliability threshold below which the
na

18
19 pipeline should not be used. Combined with other tools presented in this paper, pipeline
20
operators will be able to predict the reliability of the pipeline system and provide
lo

21
22 effective and efficient maintenance strategies which help to prevent pipeline failure.
23 The question for this tool is whether the pressure of the system is the only
24
fQ

25 important variable in failure via leakage and rupture? Electrochemical properties of the
26 system also affect the Time Needed before Action (TNBA) i.e. the time before which
27
maintenance work needs to be done. An improvement would be to include all possible
28
ua

29 variables which are affected with the fluid flow that could increase the rate at which the
30 pipeline leaks or ruptures. Another improvement on this tool will be to find ways of
31
lity

32 determining the reliability of pipeline components which account for majority of

33 pipeline failures. After this is done it can be combined in a series or parallel system to
34
determine the reliability of the entire pipeline system.
35
36
&R

37 Review and analysis

38
39
When these four tools are combined, they cover the design, operation and
40 maintenance of the pipeline. The FET (Case study 1) can be applied at the design phase
eli

41 to determine the most critical failure event that is likely to occur with the help of risk
42
43 ranking and focusing on it during design. Using the structure of the FET, the engineer
ab

44 identifies failure modes which need to be condition monitored during operation of the
45
46
pipeline system which makes the CBFTA (Case study 2) applicable by monitoring various
47 stages of failure for the pipeline system. With this, the CBFTA becomes useful for
ilit

48 operation and maintenance personnel because they can evaluate the reliability of the
49
50 pipeline system at any given time and maintain the pipeline above a reliability threshold.
y

51 Using the data collected, a modified form of the reliability prediction tool (Case study 3)
52
can be used to determine what the best maintenance strategy will be, the SSA model
Ma

53
54 can also be used in design and operation to account for the complexity of the pipeline
55 system and the most effective PM strategy. The CBFTA also helps to determine the
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 16 of 46
rn
16
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 optimal operation path for the various components of the pipeline system and in the
10
11 final stages of the life of the pipeline, the system for corroded pipelines (Case study 4)
Jo
12 can be used in evaluating the correct failure probabilities of the pipeline system that can
13 be used to keep the reliability of the pipeline system above a specified control limit.
14
Table 1 shows the relevance of each reliability tool at different stages in the life of the
ur
15
16 pipeline system. However, these tools do not cover the other stages such as installation
17
and decommissioning of the pipeline system.
na

18
19 Table 1: The model suggested depicts the minimal requirement for O&G pipeline design,
20 construction and operation and maintenance stages, according to the study results.
lo

21
Pipeline Life Cycle
22
23 Operation
24 Reliability and Maintenance Basic and
fQ

Acronym Concept Construction and

25 Methods Detailed
Design Stage Stage Maintenance
26 Design Stage
Stage
27
28
ua

Quantitative Risk
29 ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
Assessment QRA
30 Hazard Operability Study HAZOP ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
31
lity

Hazard Identification Study HAZID ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL

32
33 Failure Mode Effect and ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
34 Criticality Assessment FMEA/FMECA
35 Fault Tree Analysis FTA ESSENTIAL
36 Failure Expansion Tree FET ESSENTIAL
&R

37 Split System Approach SSA ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL

38 Accelerated Testing and
39 ESSENTIAL
Measurement AT&M
40
Simulation/Modelling SIM ESSENTIAL
eli

41
42 Structural Reliability Analysis SRA ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
43 Design of Experiments DOE ESSENTIAL
ab

44 Condition Based Fault Tree

ESSENTIAL
45 Analysis CBFTA
46 Reliability Based Preventive
ESSENTIAL
47 Maintenance RBPM
ilit

48 Engineering Criticality
49 ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
Assessment ECA
50
Failure Reporting, Analysis,
y

51 ESSENTIAL
Corrective Action System FRACAS
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 17 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
17
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Research Validation
10
11 From the research conducted, a set of questions to determine the level of
Jo
12 application of reliability engineering to O&G pipeline systems within the industry while
13
14 also focusing on some of the results of literature review were used for the survey. For
ur
15 example, the authors asked about time-based approach to pipeline maintenance vs
16
reliability-based approach, design for reliability vs design against failure, the use of the
17
na

18 FTA, and other reliability applicability issues.

19 Research validation responses were obtained from individuals with different
20
number of years of experience in the O&G industry, ranging from 2 years to 30 years
lo

21
22 who are presently working as pipeline designers and operators. Table 2 shows the
23
details of the participants of the survey. This sample size is not exhaustive, but it gives
24
fQ

25 some insight into industry perspective on the use of reliability tools for pipeline design,
26 maintenance and operations.
27
28 In response to the survey, five participants identified fatigue as the most
ua

29 frequent failure mode, while 14 identify corrosion. However, data from PHMSA indicates
30
31
that material, weld or equipment failure has the highest percentage of repeated failure
lity

32 causes followed by corrosion then excavation damage ( PHMSA, 2017). All the engineers
33 responded that reliability tools have a role to play in reducing pipeline failure, some of
34
35 the reliability tools identified by the engineers to be in use for pipeline design and
36 operation are life data analysis, FMECA, Simulation, DOE, RCA, ECA, Structural Reliability
&R

37
38
Analysis (SRA), FTA, RBD, Monte-Carlo based statistics, Bayesian models, risk based
39 tools, testing tools like radiography and ultrasonic testing.
40 The engineers identified different hindrances to the application of reliability
eli

41
42 tools. Four of them state little or no understanding of reliability methods, the lack of
43 engineers with such technical skills or competency, locations of oil and gas pipeline
ab

44
45
systems, lack of reliable and representative data, inability to determine the failure mode
46 and failure rate, cost and schedule restraints (downtime), legislative requirements,
47
ilit

uncertainties in failure root causes, multiple factor contributions to failure. These

48
49 responses suggest that reliability engineering is still in its infancy as an engineering genre
50 within O&G and there is a lack of reliability engineers as a workforce which can push its
y

51
52
application to O&G pipeline systems. A participant identified legislation/policies as a
Ma

53 problem and seven participants pointed out the problem of lack of reliable and
54 representative data as a major hindrance.
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 18 of 46
rn
18
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Table 2 Details of Survey Participants
10
11 Years of
Function Experience Country of Practice
Jo
12
13 Subsea Mechanical and Structural
14 Participant 1 Engineer 2 Nigeria
ur
15 Participant 2 Senior Pipeline Engineer 6 Nigeria
16
17 Participant 3 Flowline Design Engineer 5 Nigeria
na

18 Participant 4 Senior Subsea Engineer 6 Nigeria

19 Participant 5 Subsea Pipeline Engineer 3 Nigeria
20
Participant 6 Project Engineer 16 Nigeria
lo

21
22 Participant 7 Integrity Management 17 Australia
23 Participant 8 Instrument Control Planning Engineer 3 Malaysia
24 Trinidad and
fQ

25 Participant 9 Mechanical Engineer 9 Tobago

26
27 Participant 10 Project Superintendent 3 Indonesia
28 Participant 11 Pipeline Integrity and Capacity Engineer 4 Nigeria
ua

29 Participant 12 Reliability Engineer 3 United Kingdom

30
Participant 13 Senior Facility Engineer 7 Canada
31
lity

32 Participant 14 Senior Facility Engineer 30 Canada

33 Participant 15 Senior Mechanical Engineer 13 Angola
34 Saudi
35 Participant 16 Lead Commissioning Engineer 16 Arabia/Canada
36
&R

37 Participant 17 Process Control Engineer 22 Saudi Arabia

38 Participant 18 Maintenance Division Head 13 Saudi Arabia
39 Participant 19 Turnaround Coordinator 14 Oman
40
Participant 20 Mechanical Engineer 15 Australia
eli

41
42
43 The participants were divided on whether maintenance activities are reliability-
ab

44
45 based or time-based. While some participants apply reliability-based systems, legislative
46 requirements are time-based; these places a burden on operators to either confine
47
ilit

themselves to the time-based system or combine both which is not cost effective and
48
49 leads to extended downtimes.
50 However, as shown in case study 3, it is evident that reliability-based
y

51
52 maintenance is a preferred method because it reduces the number of maintenance
Ma

53 actions that needs to be carried out (hence reducing cost and maintenance disruption)
54
and ensures the reliability of the system stays above a control limit. The participants
55
56 mention that maintenance operations are based on the results of time-based condition
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 19 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
19
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 monitoring systems such as intelligent pigging and Remote Operating Vehicles (ROV)
10
11 surveys which are then used to determine a course of action for maintenance activities.
Jo
12 The participants agree that most of the deterioration of pipelines takes place in
13 stages, though some point out that it depends on the operating philosophy and some
14
cases where failure could be sudden and unexpected e.g. if it is an external factor. An
ur
15
16 important point is the emphasis on condition monitoring tools by the engineers. This
17
agrees with the point raised in case study 2 that CBFTA is applicable to O&G pipelines.
na

18
19 Most of the participants agree there is some application of reliability tools like
20
lateral buckling analysis, RAM studies, fatigue life assessment, SRAs in design activities,
lo

21
22 they also point out that design activities are largely based on requirements of industry
23 codes and standards. These codes and standards show the activities are more failure
24
fQ

25 centred than reliability centred; this is inferred from the fact that reliability centred
26 design, operation and maintenance systems should provide space for systems which
27
make it possible to monitor the system reliability in real-time. This is not a requirement
28
ua

29 set by the codes and standards, pipeline integrity management systems are at the
30 discretion of the pipeline operator as pointed out earlier and minimum requirements
31
lity

32 follow a time-based criterion.

33 Finally, responses from the participants suggests the FTA is not used in design,
34
operation and maintenance as only 10 participants identify the tool and three refer to it
35
36 as a design tool while eight others refer to it as a maintenance tool as opposed to a best
&R

37 practice scenario where it is used throughout the pipeline life cycle as seen in the CBFTA.
38
39 From all the survey responses, there is an indication that there is a gap in the
40 application of reliability tools to the O&G pipelines. While some tools are utilised, tools
eli

41
such as the FTA are not widely used in design and operation. By improving the
42
43 application of the FTA and other reliability tools both quantitatively and qualitatively
ab

44 could significantly help to solve a significant number of pipeline reliability issues.

45
46
47 Discussion
ilit

48 From the literature review, survey results and validation process, it is evident
49
50 that reliability engineering can help improve pipeline integrity. However, there are
y

51 various problems that need to be solved first to make these tools much more effective.
52
This section discusses significant factors that affect the application of the reliability
Ma

53
54 engineering looking from other perspectives within the O&G industry, and practical
55 issues including the mathematical applicability of the reliability tools.
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 20 of 46
rn
20
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Pipeline design, operation, maintenance and reliability tools
10
11 Is the integrity of pipelines a design, operation or a maintenance issue? If
Jo
12 pipeline failure occurs despite the application of reliability tools in design, does this
13
14 make the failure of pipelines a maintenance and operation issue? These are questions
ur
15 that need to be answered. Are O&G pipeline failures a result of poor design methods or
16
bad maintenance or operational tools? Answers to these questions can help determine
17
na

18 how reliability tools will be applied to each phase of the pipeline life cycle from design,
19 to construction, to installation, to operation and to maintenance.
20
The results of survey and review of literature show that the design, maintenance
lo

21
22 and operation phases of the pipeline lifecycle apply some reliability tools like the FMEA,
23
FRACAS RCA, fatigue assessment, SRA and others. However, there are certain problems
24
fQ

25 that affect the effective application of these tools which require further research work
26 by all stakeholders.
27
28 First is the quality of data available (e.g. lack of reliable, accurate and
ua

29 representative data). Reliability tools and models require both historical and real-time
30
31
data sets; historical data help in creating models which represent new and existing
lity

32 pipeline systems, while real-time data help to predict future failure events. The survey
33 results show that getting these data is a problem because of the length, size as wells as
34
35 conditions in which the pipeline functions and past practices which do not require
36 collection of such data. In this case, reliability engineers need to use models that
&R

37
38
combine expert knowledge and other knowledge areas that have been applied to risk
39 assessment models (Wei-Shing, et al., 2015).
40 Furthermore, reliability models which are true representations of the pipeline
eli

41
42 system remain a questionable because they depend on reliable and representative data.
43 There is a need to build standard approaches which can be used as minimum
ab

44
45
requirements for determination of reliability of any system that is generally accepted by
46 stakeholders. In the reliability studies for lateral buckling of O&G pipelines, this study is
47
ilit

used to predict the probability of lateral buckling occurring in a pipeline. This method is
48
49 accepted because there is a standard approach to determining the probability. This
50 shows that the O&G industry is open to methods which can improve the reliability of
y

51
52
the systems despite the uncertainties if there is a standard approach (Beele & Denis,
Ma

53 2012).
54 Pipeline standards and codes focus on failure prevention while there are few
55
56 sections that try to add reliability concepts to complement them. Reliability engineering
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 21 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
21
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 tools should be applied in an integrated manner throughout the lifetime of the pipeline
10
11 with design methods and integrity management systems focusing on reliability going
Jo
12 from DFR to EDBR to RCM till end of life; for example De Sanctis et al. describe the
13 integration of RCM methodology with RAM in the O&G industry as an application with
14
high priority level (DeSanctis, et al., 2016), also a reliability based system is a much more
ur
15
16 effective strategy as shown from the results of Case study 3 and the Time to Action (TTA)
17
can be determined with Case study 4, tools like the CBFTA (Case study 2) and the
na

18
19 reliability prediction tool (Case study 3) should be effective in detecting failure before
20
they occur. A focus on failure prevention methods is analogous to treating in humans
lo

21
22 the symptoms without taking care of the cause of the disease. By focusing on the
23 reliability of the system rather than solely on the known failure modes, reliability tools
24
fQ

25 and models should be more effective in preventing the failure of the pipeline system.
26 Legislation is required to improve the application of reliability models to pipeline
27
integrity management. The survey results show that reliability models are applied more
28
ua

29 in countries with such legislation, as most legislation still focus on a time-based approach
30 to integrity management. However, the effectiveness of these models in reducing
31
lity

32 pipeline failure is another matter. Hence, it is recommended that reliability engineering

33 is applied to pipelines the same way quality assurance and quality control methods have
34
become the standard in the industry.
35
36
&R

37 Cost of reliability tools application

38
39
One of the questions asked by pipeline operators and designers is: ‘What is the
40 cost of these tools compared to the cost of the pipeline failure itself?’ It is evident from
eli

41 Figure 9 (created based on PHMSA data) that the cost of failure of O&G pipelines is very
42
43 high. When reliability tools are applied effectively, they will be able to reduce the
ab

44 number of incidents and their costs (as pointed out earlier in Reliability optimisation
45
46
section), the cost of a low reliability leads to the high post implementation cost, of an
47 average of over $414 million annually being lost as damage to property in the USA alone
ilit

48 ( PHMSA, 2017). Therefore, pipeline operators should be willing to take these measures
49
50 into consideration. However, only appropriate standards and regulations that
y

51 incorporate the use of reliability prediction and reliability centred maintenance tools will
52
be able to ensure that pipeline designers and operators apply efficiently the reliability
Ma

53
54 tools. A standard approach to reliability tools application needs to be developed for O&G
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 22 of 46
rn
22
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 pipeline application by regulators. An in-depth research is also recommended into the
10
11 cost of applying reliability tools versus the cost of damages due to pipeline failure.
Jo
12
13
14
ur
15
16
17
na

18
19
20
lo

21
22
23
24
fQ

25
26
27
28
ua

29
30
31
lity

32
33
34
35
Figure 9 Cost of Pipeline Damage by Causes between 1998-2017 (PHMSA, 2018)
36
&R

37
38 Focusing on Research for Frequent failure modes
39 As mentioned in the Introduction section, O&G pipelines are a crucial
40
eli

41 infrastructure to the energy industry, a there is a high dependency on this type of

42 energy. Legislation set by countries and disruptive innovation in the area of technology
43
is pushing for a move to different types of energy, however the dependency now and in
ab

44
45 the next half century is deeply rooted in the O&G industry. The integrity of pipeline
46 systems remains a challenge of pipelines, especially in brownfield engineering; already
47
ilit

48 installed pipelines will continue to fail if engineers do not find ways to predict the
49 reliability of these aged pipelines, the same errors will be repeated if pipeline design,
50
operation and maintenance are not reliability centred.
y

51
52 Data from Figure 4 and Figure 9 indicate that the focus of research should also
Ma

53 be on corrosion, material/weld/equipment failure and third-party damage. Since

54
55 corrosion cannot be eliminated, implementing reliability monitoring methods for
56 pipelines that maintain reliability above reliability thresholds is necessary. Also, the
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 23 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
23
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 integrity of equipment used in a pipeline system accounts for more than half of
10
11 material/weld/equipment failure ( PHMSA, 2017) and a focus should be put on their
Jo
12 integrity. To be able to achieve this could be by developing design for reliability and
13 reliability testing models for equipment which can be part of procurement requirements
14
apart from current NDT methods.
ur
15
16
17 Conclusion
na

18
19 In conclusion, while pipelines are an important infrastructure, improving data
20 collection systems to develop reliability models which are a true representation of a
lo

21
22 pipeline system at various stages of the pipeline life is key. Developing a standard-
23 integrated approach which is universally accepted as models that can be used during
24
fQ

the entire pipeline system lifecycle and serve as minimum requirements for pipeline
25
26 reliability, creating legislation, standards and codes that focus on reliability as well as
27 focused research on the most frequent failure incidents should be the focus in improving
28
ua

29 pipeline integrity and reliability tools application.

30
31
lity

32
33
34
35
36
&R

37
38
39
40
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 24 of 46
rn
24
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Declaration of conflicting interests
10
11 The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Jo
12
13 Funding
14 The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
ur
15 publication of this article. The authors would like to acknowledge the individuals that
16
17
took part in the survey.
na

18
19
20
lo

21
22
23
24
fQ

25
26
27
28
ua

29
30
31
lity

32
33
34
35
36
&R

37
38
39
40
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 25 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
25
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 References
10
11
Andrews, J. D. & Moss, T. R., 2002. Reliability and Risk Assessment. 2nd ed. s.l.:Wiley-
Jo
12
13
14 Blackwell.
ur
15
16
Azevedo., C., 2007. Failure Analysis of a Crude Oil Pipeline. Engineering Failure Analysis,
17 Volume 14, pp. 978-994.
na

18
19 Beele, F. V. D. & Denis, R., 2012. Numerical Modelling and Analysis for Offshore Pipeline
20
Design, Installation and Operation. Journal of Pipeline Integrity, 12(4), pp. 273-286.
lo

21
22
23 Birolini, A., 2007. Reliabiity Engineering. 7th ed. s.l.:Springer.
24
fQ

25 Blanks, H., 1992. Reliability in Procurement and Use. New York: Wiley.
26
27
Canadian Energy Pipeline Asociation (CEPA), 2014. Why Pipelines are Needed?. [Online]
28
ua

Available at: http://www.cepa.com/about-pipelines/why-pipelines

29
30 [Accessed 30 March 2015].
31
lity

32 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 2017. The World Factbook. Washington DC: CIA.
33
34 Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2013. Annual Energy Outlook, Washington DC:
35
36 US depeartment of Energy.
&R

37
38
ExxonMobil, 2015. The Outlook for Energy: A view to 2040, Texas: s.n.
39 Furchtgott-Ruch, D., 2013. Pipelines are Safest for Transportation of Oil and Gas,
40
eli

41 Manhattan: s.n.
42
43 Hopkins, P., 2007. Oil and Gas Pipelines: Yesterday and Today. American Society of
ab

44
45 Mechanical Engineers, pp. 1-9.
46
47 Ilaria De, S., Paciarotti, C. & Oreste, D. G., 2016. Integration Between RCM and RAM: A
ilit

48
Case Study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33(6), pp. 852-
49
50 880.
y

51
52 Kececioglu, D., 2003. Robust Engineering Design By Reliability With Emphasis on
Ma

53
54 Mechanical Components and Structural Reliability. Lancaster(PA): DEStech Publications.
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 26 of 46
rn
26
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Lau, J., Horsley, R., Dauskher, W., Shauggan, D., Love, D., Smetana, J., Castello, T.,
10
11 Sullivan, B. & Menis, I., 2003. Design for Lead-Free Solder Joint Reliability of High Density
Jo
12
13 Packages. CA, s.n.
14
Lin, J., Yuan, Y. & Zhang, M., 2014. Improved FTA Methodology and Application to
ur
15
16
17
Subsea Pipeline Reliability Design. PLOS ONE, 25 March.9(3).
na

18 Mclinn, J., 2010. A Short History of Reliability. The R & M Enginneering Journal,
19
20 March.pp. 8-16.
lo

21
22 Moubray, J., 1997. Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM). 2nd ed. s.l.:Industrial Press
23
24 Inc..
fQ

25
26 O'Connor, P. & Kleyner, A., 2012. Practical Reliability Engineering. 5th Edition ed.
27
28
Manchester: Wiley.
ua

29 Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2017. All Reported
30
31 Pipeline Incidents by Cause, Washington DC: PHMSA.
lity

32
33 Shalev, D. M. & Tiran, J., 2007. Condition Based Fault Tree Analysis (FTA): A New Method
34
35 for Improved Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Reliability and Safety Calculations. Reliability and
36
&R

37 Engineering Safety, Volume 92, pp. 1231-1241.

38
Smith, D. J., 2011. Reliability, Maintenance and Risk: Practical Methods for Engineers.
39
40 8th ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
eli

41
42 Sun, Y., Ma, L. & Morris, J., 2009. A Practical Approach for Reliability Prediction of
43
ab

44 Pipeline Systems. European Journal of Operational Reserach, Volume 198, pp. 210-214.
45
46 Wei-Shing,Wu.; Chen-Feng, Yang.; Jung-Chuan, Chang.; Pierre-Alexandre, Châteaua &
47
ilit

48 Yang-Chi, Chang., 2015. Risk Assessment by Integrating Interpretive Structural Modeling

49
and Bayesian Network, Case of Offshore Pipeline Project. Reliability Engineering and
50
y

51 System Safety, Volume 142, pp. 515-524.

52
Ma

53 Zhou, W., 2010. System Reliability of Corroding Pipelines. International Journal of

54
55 Pressure Vessels and Piping, Volume 87, pp. 587-595.
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 27 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9
10 APPENDICES
11
Jo
12
13 APPENDIX A: A List of questions from the Questionnaire used in this study
14
Demographics and background of participant
ur
15
16
17
Company Name:
na

18 Location:
19
20 Your Role/Function:
lo

21
22 Years of Experience with Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems:
23
24
fQ

25
26
1. What do you think is the most frequent failure mode for oil and gas pipelines?
27 2. Do you think reliability tools can help reduce pipeline failure?
28
ua

29 3. Are there reliability tools applied in pipeline operation and maintenance? (see
30
31 list of some tools below), if yes please list some tools
lity

32
33 4. What is the greatest hindrance to application of reliability tools to pipelines?
34
35 5. Are maintenance activities reliability-based or time based?
36
&R

37
6. If they are reliability based, please give a brief description of some of them?
38 7. Do design activities include reliability studies or are they solely failure prevention
39
40 methods?
eli

41
42 8. If there are reliability studies and analysis, please list some of them
43
9. Are there identifiable stages in the deterioration of pipelines or is it sudden?
ab

44
45
46 10. Do design activities apply reliability tools? (see list of tools below), if yes please
47
ilit

48
list of the tools
49 11. Do you use the FTA as a design tool or maintenance tool?
50
y

51
52
Ma

53 In the quantitative category, the typical tools are:

54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 28 of 46
rn
28
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9  Life Data Analysis (a.k.a. "Distribution Analysis" or "Weibull Analysis")
10
11  Reliability Growth Analysis
Jo
12
13  Accelerated Testing (a.k.a. "Life-Stress Analysis")
14
 System modelling using Reliability Block Diagrams (RBDs)
ur
15
16
17  Simulation
na

18
19  Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
20
 Design of Experiments (DOE)
lo

21
22
 Standards-based Reliability Predictions (e.g., MIL-217)
23
24
fQ

25
26 In the qualitative category, the typical tools are:
27
28  Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMEA/FMECA)
ua

29
30  Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM)
31
lity

32  Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action Systems (FRACAS)

33
34  Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
35
36
&R

37
38
39
40
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 29 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
29
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 APPENDIX B: REFERENCES FROM ORIGINAL PAPER
10
11 Antonio, C. & Nelson, F., 1999. A fuzzy fault tree system for uncertainty analysis.
Jo
12
13 Annals of Nuclear Energy, pp. 26,523-532.
14
ur
15 Atanassov, K., 1986. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, pp. 20,87-96.
16
17 Azevedo, C., 2007. Failure Analysis of a Crude oil pipeline. Engineering Failure Analysis,
na

18
19 pp. 978-994.
20
Azevedo, C. & Sinatora, A., 2004. Failure Analysis of a Gas Pipeline. Engineering Failure
lo

21
22 Analysis, pp. 387-400.
23
24 Biswas, R., 1997. On Fuzzy sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets. NIFS, pp. 3-11.
fQ

25
26 Blanks, H., 1992. Reliability in Procurement and Use. New York: Wiley.
27
28 Brown, R. E., 2004. Failure Rate Modelling Using Equipment Inspection Data. New York,
ua

29
30 IEEE, pp. 693-700.
31
Bustince, H. & Burillo, P., 1996. Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and
lity

32
33 systems, pp. 79,403-405.
34
35 Cai, K., 1996. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. In: System Failure and fuzzy methodology: An
36
&R

37 introductory review. s.l.:s.n., pp. 83,113-133.

38
39 CEPA, 2014. Google Chrome. [Online]
40
Available at: http://www.cepa.com/about-pipelines/why-pipelines
eli

41
42 [Accessed 30 March 2014].
43
ab

44 Cheng, S.-r., Lin, B., Hsu, B.-M. & Shu, M.-H., 2009. Fault-tree analysis for liquefied
45
46 natural gas terminal emergency shutdown system. Expert System Applications, Volume
47
ilit

48 36, pp. 11918-11924.

49
50 CIA, 2013. The World Factbook. Washington DC: CIA.
y

51
52
Condra, L., 1993. Reliability Improvement with design of Experiments. 2nd ed. New
Ma

53 York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 30 of 46
rn
30
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Crawley, F., Lines, I. & J.Mather, 2003. Oil and Gas Pipeline Failure Modelling.
10
11 Institution of Chemical Engineers, January, pp. Vol 81, Part B.
Jo
12
13 Dahlberg, E. P. & Bruno, T., no date. Analysis of Gas Pipeline Failure, s.l.: s.n.
14
De, S., Biswas, R. & Roy, A., 2001. An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical
ur
15
16
17
diagnosis. Fuzzy sets and systems, pp. 117,209-213.
na

18 Deus Rescue, 2011. The Deus Rescue Blog. [Online]

19
20 Available at: http://www.deusrescue.com/blog/post/2011/05/07/the-difference-
lo

21
22 between-quality-and-reliability/
23
24 [Accessed 15 July 2014].
fQ

25
26 EGIG, European Gas Pipeline Incident Group, 2011. Gas Pipeline Incident Report, s.l.:
27
28
s.n.
ua

29 EIA, Energy Information Administration, 2013. Annual Energy Outlook, Washington DC:
30
31 US department of Energy.
lity

32
33 Furchtgott-Ruch, D., 2013. Pipelines are Safest for Transportation of oil and gas,
34
35 Manhattan: s.n.
36
&R

37 Hopkins, P., 2007. Oil and Gas Pipelines: Yesterday and Today. American Society of
38
Mechanical Engineers, pp. 1-9.
39
40 ITA, 2008. Europe Pipeline Maps. [Online]
eli

41
42 Available at:
43
ab

44 http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/europe_oil_gas_and_products_pipelines.html
45
46 [Accessed 15 July 2014].
47
ilit

48 ITEM SOFTWARE, 2014. Fault Tree Analysis. [Online]

49
Available at: http://www.reliabilityeducation.com/intro_ft.html
50
y

51 [Accessed 25 June 2014].

52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 31 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
31
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Keifner, J., Maxey, W., Eiber, R. & Duffy, A., 1973. Progress in Flaw Growth and
10
11 Fracture Testing. In: Failure stress levels of flaws in pressurized cylinders. s.l.:American
Jo
12
13 Society of Testing and Materials, pp. 461-481.
14
Kumar, M., Sujata, M., Venkataswamy, M. & Bhaumik, S., 2008. Failure Analysis of a
ur
15
16
17
Stainless-Steel Pipeline. Engineering Failure Analysis, pp. 497-504.
na

18 Lau, J. et al., 2004. Design for lead-free solder joint reliability of high-density packages.
19
20 Soldering & Surface Mount Technology, 16(1), pp. 12-26.
lo

21
22 Leis, B. & Stephens, D., 1997. An alternative approach to assess the integrity of
23
24 corroded line pipes. Honolulu, 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
fQ

25
26 Conference.
27
28
Li, D., 2005. Multi-attribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic
ua

29 fuzzy sets. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, pp. 70,73-85.

30
31 Li, D. & Cheng, C., 2002. New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and
lity

32
33 application to pattern recognition. Patter recognition letter, 23(1-3), pp. 221-225.
34
35 Lin, J., Yuan, Y. & Zhang, M., 2014. Improved FTA Methodology and Application to
36
&R

37 Subsea Pipeline Reliability Design. PLOS ONE, 25 March.9(3).

38
Mclinn, J., 2011. A Short History of Reliability. The Journal of Reliability Analysis Centre,
39
40 pp. 8-16.
eli

41
42 Melchers, R., 1999. Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction. Chichester, UK: John
43
ab

44 Wiley & Sons.

45
46 Mon, D. & Cheng, C., 1994. Fuzzy system reliability analysis for components with
47
ilit

48 different membership functions. Fuzzy sets and Systems, pp. 64,145-157.

49
Naval Surface Warfare Centre (NSWC), 1998. Handbook of reliability prediction
50
y

51 procedures for mechanical equipment. Carderock Division: Logistics Engineering

52
Ma

53 Technology Branch.
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 32 of 46
rn
32
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 OMOYA, O., 2013. MACE 64062-Reliability and Maintainability. Manchester: s.n.
10
11 PHMSA, 2014. All Reported Pipeline Incidents, Washington DC: PHMSA.
Jo
12
13 PHMSA, 2014. All Reported Pipeline Incidents by Cause, Washington DC: PHMSA.
14
PHMSA, 2014. PHMSA, All Significant Incidents Files, s.l.: PHMSA.
ur
15
16
17
Reliasoft Corporation, 2003. Weibull.com. [Online]
na

18 Available at: http://www.weibull.com/Articles/RelIntro/Brining_It_All_Together.htm

19
20 [Accessed 15 July 2014].
lo

21
22 Reliasoft Corporation, 2005. Engineering Design by Reliability. Reliability Edge, pp. 1-2.
23
24 Reliasoft Corporation, 2006. Fault Tree Analysis, Reliability Block Diagrams and
fQ

25
26 BlockSim FTI Edition. Reliability Edge, 4(1).
27
28
Reliasoft Corporation, 2008. Asset Performance Management supported by Reliability
ua

29 Engineering. Reliability Edge, pp. 1-4.

30
31 Reliasoft Corporation, 2008. Design for Reliability: Overview of the Process and
lity

32
33 Applicable Techniques. Reliability Edge, 8(2).
34
35 Saleh, J. & Marais, K., 2006. Highlights from the early (and pre-) history of reliability
36
&R

37 engineering. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, pp. 249-256.

38
Saravanan, N., Cholairajan, S. & Ramachandran, K., 2008. Vibration-based fault
39
40 diagnosis of spur bevel gear box using fuzzy technique. Expert Systems with
eli

41
42 applications.
43
ab

44 SCNL, 2012. Flowlines and Pipeline Design. Lagos: s.n.

45
46 Shahriar, A., Sadiq, R. & Tesfamariam, S., 2012. Risk Analysis for Oil and gas Pipelines: A
47
ilit

48 sustainability Assessment Approach Using Fuzzy Based Bow Tie Analysis. Journal of
49
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, pp. 505-523.
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 Page 33 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
rn
33
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Shalev, D. M. & Tiran, J., 2007. Condition-Based Fault Tree Analysis (CBFTA): A new
10
11 method for improved fault tree analysis(FTA), reliability and safety calculations.
Jo
12
13 Reliability Engineering and System Safety, pp. 1231-1241.
14
Subsea World news, 2013. Subsea World news. [Online]
ur
15
16
17
Available at: http://subseaworldnews.com/2013/06/14/exxonmobil-seeks-contractor-
na

18 for-offshore-pipelines-project/
19
20 [Accessed 15 July 2014].
lo

21
22 Sun, Y., Ma, L. & Morris, J., 2009. A Practical Approach for Reliability Prediction of
23
24 Pipeline Systems. European Journal of Operational Research, pp. 210-214.
fQ

25
26 Suresh, P., Babar, A. & Raj, V., 1996. Uncertainty in fault tree analysis: A fuzzy
27
28
Approach. Fuzzy sets and systems, pp. 83,135-141.
ua

29 Uraikul, V., Chan, C. & P.Tontiwachwuthikul, 2000. Development of an expert system

30
31 for optimizing natural gas pipeline operations. Expert System Applications, Volume 18,
lity

32
33 pp. 271-282.
34
35 Walley, P., 1991. Statistical Reasoning with imprecise probabilities. London: Chapman
36
&R

37 Hall.
38
Walley, P., 1997. Statistical Inferences based on second order possibility distribution.
39
40 International Journal of General Systems, pp. 26,337-383.
eli

41
42 Wyatts, 2005. Reliability Block Diagram. [Online]
43
ab

44 Available at:
45
46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wyatts/Draft_article_C#mediaviewer/File:Reliability
47
ilit

48 _block_diagram.png
49
[Accessed 20 April 2014].
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 34 of 46
rn
34
1
ati
2
3
4
5
on
6
7
8
al
9 Yuhua, D. & Datao, Y., 2005. Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas
10
11 transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Jo
12
13 Process Industries, pp. 83-88.
14
Y, X., 2007. Research of Risk Assessment Technology for Subsea Oil and Gas Pipeline
ur
15
16
17
System. Southwest Petroleum University: s.n.
na

18 Zhou, J., 2005. Reliability Assessment method for pressure piping containing
19
20 circumferential defects based on fuzzy probability. International Journal of Pressure
lo

21
22 Vessels and Piping, pp. 669-678.
23
24 Zhou, W., 2010. system reliability of corroding pipelines. International Journal of
fQ

25
26 Pressure Vessels and Piping, Volume 87, pp. 587-595.
27
28
ua

29
30
31
lity

32
33
34
35
36
&R

37
38
39
40
eli

41
42
43
ab

44
45
46
47
ilit

48
49
50
y

51
52
Ma

53
54
55
56
na

57
58
59
60
ge
me

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
Page 35 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24
Qu

25
26
27
ali

28 Figure 1: Energy Demand Forecast by Source and The Global Energy Mix (2017)
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 36 of 46
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24
Qu

25
Figure 2 Trend for Pipeline Incidents according to data from PHMSA (2017).
26
27 182x105mm (150 x 150 DPI)
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
Page 37 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24
Qu

25
26
27
ali

28
Figure 3 Cost of Pipeline Failure from 1997-2016 based on data from PHMSA (2017)
29
30 155x105mm (150 x 150 DPI)
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 38 of 46
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
Figure 4 Causes of Pipeline Incidents from 1998-2017( PHMSA, 2018).
22
23
24
Qu

25
26
27
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
Page 39 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24
Qu

25
26
27
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

Figure 5 Illustration of Reliability Engineering approach (Lau et al., 2003).

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 40 of 46
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24
Qu

25
26
27
ali

28 Figure 6: Cost Implication of Reliability (O'Connor & Kleyner, 2012).

29
30 204x135mm (96 x 96 DPI)
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
Page 41 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24 Figure 7: Methodology Flow Chart
Qu

25
26
27
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
ter
nat
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 42 of 46

ion
1
2

al J
3
4 START: Is it
5 Identify and At what What List of

ou
applicable solutions
6 Review stage of the solutions
7
to Oil and Yes created
pipeline life do these

rna
Reliability Tools: Gas
8 cycle it can tools offer
9 70 relevant Pipelines From the
be applied

l of
10 journal papers
11 have been
70 papers,
12 identified No 4 case

Qu
13 studies
14
have been

alit
15
List of
16
Can it be application
identified
17 What are

y&
18 adapted to Yes the problems
19 an O&G application created
20

Rel
Recommended pipeline problems
21 system Conduct a
22
for Further
Reliability Survey

iab
23 Research Work
No
24

ility
25
26 Are these Identify
27 Is the
tools how can
28 Yes problem

Ma
29 END applied in solved
these
problems
30 the

nag
31 Industry be solved
32
33 No

em
34
35

en
36
37
38
39 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
40
41
Page 43 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
Figure 8: Comparison of the CBFTA Vs the Traditional FTA method (Shalev & Tiran, 2007)
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24
Qu

25
26
27
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 44 of 46
na
1
2 Pipeline Life Cycle
ti o
3
Basic and Operation
4 Concept
5 Reliability and Maintenance Methods Acronym Detailed Construction and
Design
na
6 Design Stage Mantenance
Stage
7 Stage Stage
8
Quantitative Risk Assessment QRA ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
9
lJ
10 Hazard Operability Study HAZOP ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
11 Hazard Identification Study HAZID ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
ou
12
ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
13 Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Assessment FMEA/FMECA
14 Fault Tree Analysis FTA ESSENTIAL
15
rn
Failure Expansion Tree FET ESSENTIAL
16 Split System Approach SSA ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
17
Accelerated Testing and Measurement AT&M ESSENTIAL
al
18
19 Simulation/Modelling SIM ESSENTIAL
20 Structural Reliability Analysis SRA ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL
of
21 Design of Experiments DOE ESSENTIAL
22 Condition Based Fault Tree Analysis CBFTA ESSENTIAL
23 Reliability Based Preventive Maintenance RBPM ESSENTIAL
24
Qu

Engineering Criticality Assessment ECA ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL

25 Failure Reporting,Analysis,Corrective Action
26 System
ESSENTIAL
FRACAS
27
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
Page 45 of 46 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
na
1
2 Years of
ti o
3 Function Experience Country of Practice
4 Participant 1 Subsea Mechanical and Structural Engineer 2 Nigeria
5 Participant 2 Senior Pipeline Engineer 6 Nigeria
na
6 Participant 3 Flowline Design Engineer 5 Nigeria
7 Participant 4 Senior Subsea Engineer 6 Nigeria
8 Participant 5 Subsea Pipeline Engineer 3 Nigeria
9
lJ
Participant 6 Project Engineer 16 Nigeria
10
11 Participant 7 Integrity Management 17 Australia
ou
12 Participant 8 Instrument Control Planning Engineer 3 Malaysia
13 Participant 9 Mechanical Engineer 9 Trinidad and Tobago
14 Participant 10 Project Superintendent 3 Indonesia
15
rn
Participant 11 Pipeline Integrity and Capacity Engineer 4 Nigeria
16 Participant 12 Reliability Engineer 3 United Kingdom
17 Participant 13 Senior Facility Engineer 7 Canada
al
18 Participant 14 Senior Facility Engineer 30 Canada
19 Participant 15 Senior Mechanical Engineer 13 Angola
20
Participant 16 Lead Commissioning Engineer 16 Saudi Arabia/Canada
of
21
22 Participant 17 Process Control Engineer 22 Saudi Arabia
23 Participant 18 Maintenance Division Head 13 Saudi Arabia
24 Participant 19 Turnaround Coordinator 14 Oman
Qu

25 Participant 20 Mechanical Engineer 15 Australia

26
27
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e
 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Page 46 of 46
na
1
2
ti o
3
4
5
na
6
7
8
9
lJ
10
11
ou
12
13
14
15
rn
16
17
al
18
19
20
of
21
22
23
24
Qu

25
26 Figure 9 Cost of Pipeline Damage by Causes from 1998 to 2017 (PHMSA, 2018)
27
ali

28
29
30
ty

31
32
33
34
&

35
36
Re

37
38
39
lia

40
41
42
bi

43
44
45
lity

46
47
48
49
M

50
51
52
an

53
54
55
a

56
57
ge

58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijqrm
m
e