Spiral Pipe for Offshore Application

Spiral welded pipe production uses hot rolled coil. The alloy content of the coil is often lower than similar grades of steel plate, improving the weldability of the spiral welded pipe. Due to the rolling direction of spiral welded pipe coil is not perpendicular to the pipe axis direction, the crack resistance of the spiral welded pipe materials.

Because of the unique performance of the spiral pipe, when spiral welded pipe blasting occurred, the weld suffered stress and co-stress is relatively small, blasting the mouth is generally not the origin of the spiral weld, so the higher security. Spiral weld near the defect with parallel spiral weld force is smaller, so the risk of expansion is not.

Steel pipe subjected to internal pressure, usually in the wall on the two main application of force, the radial stress δY and axial stress δX. Weld resultant stress δ = δY (l/4sin2α + cos2α) 1/2, which, α is the helix angle of the spiral weld pipe. The helix angle of the spiral weld pipe is generally 50-75 degrees, so the spiral weld large resultant stress. In the same work under the pressure of the same diameter spiral welded pipe wall thickness can be reduced a lot, spiral pipe plant can be made into a small caliber.

On-Bottom Stability of Offshore Pipeline

One important aspect in designing an offshore pipeline system is its stability for being underwater, on the seabed for a life time service (operation). The analysis of keeping the pipeline system remained on the seabed is known as On-Bottom Stability. There are few methods to maintain pipeline at the seabed, such as pipe burial, trenching, as well as building a rock berm, and thicken the concrete coating. On-bottom stability consists of vertical stability and dynamic lateral stability.

Vertical Stability

Total pipe weight is the weight of the pipe alloy steel material, anti-corrosion coating, and field joint coating. A cross-section of an offshore pipeline can be seen through the image below:

In order to avoid floatation in water, the submerged weight of the pipeline shall meet the following criteria:

where:

ΥW = safety factor

b = pipe buoyancy per unit length : ρw • g • ∏ • D2 / 4

ρw = mass density of water

g = acceleration of gravity

D = pipe outer diameter (including all coating)

ws = pipe submerged weight per unit length

sg = pipe specific density : (ws+b)/b

If a sufficiently low probability of negative buoyancy is not documented, the safety factor ΥW = 1.1 can be applied.

Dynamic Lateral Stability

The objective of a dynamic lateral stability analysis is to calculate the lateral displacement of a pipeline subjected to hydrodynamic loads from a given combination of waves and current during a design sea state. On-bottom stability is a highly non-linear phenomenon with a large degree of stick/slip response. This is particularly important to keep in mind for large values of current to wave ratios and large wave periods, and more so for stiff clay and rock than for soft clay and sand where the build up of penetration and passive resistance is more pronounced.

1. Current Condition

The steady current flow at the pipe level may have components from:

• Tidal current
• Wind-induced current
• Storm surge induced current
• Density driven current

2. Short Term Wave Condition

The wave induced oscillatory flow condition at the pipe level may be calculated using numerical or analytical wave theories. The wave theory shall be capable of describing the conditions at the pipe location, including effects due to shallow water, if applicable. The short-term, stationary, irregular sea states may be described by a wave spectrum Shh(ω) i.e. the power spectral density function of the sea surface elevation. Wave spectra may be given in table form, as measured spectra, or in an analytical form.

For instance, the JONSWAP spectrum, the spectral density function reads:

3. Forces Affecting Pipeline On-Bottom Stability

• Hydrodynamic force, consists of drag force and inertia force (can be calculated using morrison formula), as well as lift force. Lift force is a vertical hydrodynamic force. This would happen with the concentration of streamline on the pipe.
• Soil friction force, is a horizontal force influenced by friction coefficient between pipe and seabed. Value of the friction coefficient depends on the seabed soil characteristics. For example, friction coefficient for clay-soil is 0.2 and friction coefficient for sandy-soil is 0.6.

Sumber:

Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F109 October 2010

http://www.efka.utm.my/thesis/IMAGES/3PSM/2007/JSB/PARTS5/mohdridzaba030064d07ttt.pdf

Santika, Anindya Rizki. Laporan tugas akhir: Desain dan Analisis Instalasi Pipa Bawah Laut Menggunakan DNV OS F101 2010 dan DNV 1981. Bandung. 2011.

Rapid Crack Propagation Increasingly Important in Gas Applications: A Status Report

By By Dr. Gene Palermo, Palermo Plastics Pipe (P3) Consulting; William J. Michie, Jr. and Dr. Dane Chang, The Dow Chemical Company

Polyethylene (PE) is the primary material used for gas pipe applications. Because of its flexibility, ease of joining and long-term durability, along with lower installed cost and lack of corrosion, gas companies want to install PE pipe instead of steel pipe in larger diameters and higher pressures. As a result, rapid crack propagation (RCP) is becoming a more important property of PE materials.

This article reviews the two key ISO test methods that are used to determine RCP performance (full-scale test and small-scale steady state test), and compare the values obtained with various PE materials on a generic basis. It also reviews the status of RCP requirements in industry standards; such as ISO 4437, ASTM D 2513 and CSA B137.4. In addition, it reviews progress within CSA Z662 Clause 12 and the AGA Plastic Materials Committee to develop industry guidelines based on the values obtained in the RCP tests to design against an RCP incident.

Background

Although the phenomenon of RCP has been known and researched for several years 1, the number of RCP incidents has been very low. A few have occurred in the gas industry in North America, such as a 12-inch SDR 13.5 in the U.S. and a 6-inch SDR 11 in Canada, and a few more in Europe.

With gas engineers desiring to use PE pipe at higher operating pressures (up to 12 bar or 180 psig) and larger diameters (up to 30 inches), a key component of a PE piping material - resistance to rapid crack propagation (RCP) - becomes more important.

Most of the original research work conducted on RCP was for metal pipe. As plastic pipe became more prominent, researchers applied similar methodologies used for metal pipe on the newer plastic pipe materials, and particularly polyethylene (PE) pipe 2. Most of this research was done in Europe and through the ISO community.

Rapid crack propagation, as its name implies, is a very fast fracture. Crack speeds up to 600 ft/sec have been measured. These fast cracks can also travel long distances, even hundreds of feet. The DuPont Company had two RCP incidents with its high-density PE pipe, one that traveled about 300 feet and the other that traveled about 800 feet.

RCP cracks usually initiate at internal defects during an impact or impulse event. They generally occur in pressurized systems with enough stored energy to drive the crack faster than the energy is released. Based on several years of RCP research, whether an RCP failure occurs in PE pipe depends on several factors:

1. Pipe size.
2. Internal pressure.
3. Temperature.
4. PE material properties/resistance to RCP.
5. Pipe processing.

Typical features of an RCP crack are a sinusoidal (wavy) crack path along the pipe, and “hackle” marks along the pipe crack surface that indicate the direction of the crack. At times, the crack will bifurcate (split) into two directions as it travels along the pipe.

Test Methods

The RCP test method that is considered to be the most reliable is the full-scale (FS) test method, as described in ISO 13478. This method requires at least 50 feet of plastic pipe for each test and another 50 feet of steel pipe for the reservoir. It is very expensive and time consuming. The cost to obtain the desired RCP information can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Due to the high cost for the FS RCP test, Dr. Pat Levers of Imperial College developed the small-scale steady state (S4) test method to correlate with the full-scale test3. This accelerated RCP test uses much smaller pipe samples (a few feet) and a series of baffles, and is described in ISO 13477. The cost of conducting this S4 testing is still expensive, but less than FS testing. Several laboratories now have S4 equipment. A photograph with this article shows the S4 apparatus used by Jana Laboratories.

Whether conducting FS or S4 RCP testing, there are two key results used by the piping industry; one is the critical pressure and the other is the critical temperature.

The critical pressure is obtained by conducting a series of FS or S4 tests at a constant temperature (generally 0C) and varying the internal pressure. At low pressures, where there is insufficient energy to drive the crack, the crack initiates and immediately arrests (stops). At higher pressures, the crack propagates (goes) to the end of the pipe. The critical pressure is shown by the red line in Figure 1 as the transition between arrest at low pressures and propagation at high pressures. In this case, the critical pressure is 10 bar (145 psig).

Due to the baffles in the S4 test, the critical pressure obtained must be corrected to correlate with the FS critical pressure. There has been considerable research within the ISO community conducted in this area. Dr. Philippe Vanspeybroeck of Becetel chaired a working group - ISO/TC 138/SC 5/WG RCP - that conducted S4 and FS testing on several PE pipes 4. Based on their extensive research effort, the WG arrived at the following correlation formula 5 to convert the S4 critical pressure (Pc,S4) to the FS critical pressure (Pc,FS):

Pc,FS = 3.6 Pc,S4 + 2.6 bar (1)

It is important to note that this S4/FS correlation formula may not be applicable to other piping materials, such as PVC or polyamide (PA). For example, Arkema has conducted S4 and FS testing on PA-11 pipe and found a different correlation formula for PA-11 pipe 6.

The critical temperature is obtained by conducting a series of FS or S4 tests at a constant pressure (generally 5 bar or 75 psig) and varying the temperature 7. At high temperatures the crack initiates and immediately arrests. At low temperatures, the crack propagates to the end of the pipe. The critical temperature is shown by the red line in Figure 2 as the transition between arrest at high temperatures and propagation at low temperatures. In this case, the critical temperature is 35°F (2°C).

RCP In ISO

The International Standards Organization (ISO) product standard for PE gas pipe, ISO 4437, has included an RCP requirement for many years 8. This is because there were some RCP failures in early generation European PE gas pipes, and the Europeans had conducted considerable research on RCP in PE pipes. Also, European gas companies were using large-diameter pipes and higher operating pressures for PE pipes, both of which make the pipe more susceptible to RCP failures. Below is the current requirement for RCP taken from ISO 4437:

Pc > 1.5 x MOP (2)

Where: Pc = full scale critical pressure, psig

MOP = maximum operating pressure, psig

Most manufacturers use the S4 test to meet this ISO 4437 RCP requirement. If the requirement is not met, then the manufacturer may use the FS test. Therefore, the ISO 4437 product standard requires that RCP testing be done, and also provides values for the RCP requirement.

RCP In ASTM

Until recently, ASTM D 2513 did not address RCP at all 9. The AGA Plastic Materials Committee (PMC) requested that an RCP requirement be added to ASTM D 2513, similar to the RCP requirement in the ISO PE gas pipe standard ISO 4437. The manufacturers agreed to include a requirement in ASTM D 2513 that RCP testing (FS or S4) must be performed. The ASTM product standard D 2513 does not include any required values.

PMC has agreed with this approach and will develop its own industry requirement in the form of a “white paper.” 10 The first draft was just issued within PMC with the following proposed requirement:

PC,FS > leak test pressure.

Leak test pressure = 1.5 X MOP.

RCP In CSA

CSA followed the direction of ASTM. The product standard CSA B137.4 11 requires that the RCP testing must be done. The values of the RCP test will be stipulated in CSA Z662 Clause 12, which is the Code of Practice for gas distribution in Canada. Clause 12 recently approved the requirement as shown nearby.

12.4.3.6 Rapid Crack Propagation (RCP) Requirements

When tested in accordance with B137.4 requirements for PE pipe and compounds, the standard PE pipe RCP Full-Scale critical pressure shall be at least 1.5 times the maximum operating pressure. If the RCP Small-Scale Steady State method is used, the RCP Full-Scale critical pressure shall be determined using the correlation formula in B137.4.

(end of box)

RCP Test Data

The critical pressure is the pressure - below which - RCP will not occur. The higher the critical pressure, the less likely the gas company will have an RCP event. In most cases, as the pipe diameter or wall thickness increases, the critical pressure decreases. Therefore, RCP is more of a concern with large-diameter or thick-walled pipe. Following are some typical critical pressure values for various generic PE materials. For most cases, the pipe size tested is 12-inch SDR 11 pipe.

PE Material S4 Critical Pressure (PC,S4) at 32°F (0°C)/Full Scale Critical Pressure (PC,FS) @ 0°C

Unimodal MDPE 1 bar (15 psig)/6.2 bar (90 psig)

Bimodal MDPE 10 bar (145 psig) /38.6 bar (560 psig)

Unimodal HDPE 2 bar (30 psig)/9.8 bar (140 psig)

Bimodal HDPE (PE 100+) 12 bar (180 psig)/45.8 bar (665 psig)

In general, the RCP resistance is greater for HDPE (high-density PE) than MDPE (medium-density PE). However, there is a significant difference when comparing a unimodal PE to a bimodal PE material, about a ten-fold difference.

Bimodal PE technology was developed in Asia and Europe in the 1980s. This technology is known to provide superior performance for both slow crack growth and RCP, as evidenced by the table. For the bimodal PE 100+ materials used in Europe and Asia, the S4 critical pressure minimum requirement is 10 bar (145 psig), which converts to 560 psig operating pressure. This means that with these bimodal PE 100+ materials, RCP will not be a concern. Today, there are several HDPE resin manufacturers that use this bimodal technology. Recently, a new bimodal MDPE material was introduced for the gas industry 12,13 with a significantly higher S4 critical pressure compared to unimodal MDPE - 10 bar compared to 1 bar.

Another measure of RCP resistance is the critical temperature. This is defined as the temperature above which RCP will not occur. Therefore, a gas engineer wants to use a PE material with a critical temperature as low as possible. Although critical temperature is not used as a requirement in the product standards, it is an important parameter, and perhaps should be given more consideration. Following is a table with some typical critical temperature values for various generic PE materials. For most cases, the pipe size tested is 12-inch SDR 11 pipe.

PE Material/Critical Temperature (TC) at 5 bar (75 psig)

Unimodal MDPE 15°C (60°F)

Bimodal MDPE -2°C (28°F)

Unimodal HDPE 9°C (48°F)

Bimodal HDPE -17°C (1°F)

Again, we see that RCP performance for HDPE is slightly better than MDPE, but there is a significant difference between bimodal PE and unimodal PE. The bimodal MDPE and HDPE materials have the lowest critical temperatures, which means the greatest resistance to RCP.

Conclusion

As gas companies use PE pipe in more demanding applications, such as larger pipe diameters and higher operating pressures, the resistance of the PE pipe to rapid crack propagation (RCP) becomes more important. In this article we have discussed the phenomenon of RCP and the two primary test methods used to determine RCP resistance - the S4 test and the Full Scale test. We reviewed the correlation formula between the FS test and S4 test for critical pressure. We have also discussed the two primary results of RCP testing - the critical pressure and the critical temperature.

ISO standards were the first to recognize the importance of RCP, especially in larger diameter pipe sizes, and incorporated RCP requirements in product standards, such as ISO 4437. The Canadian standards soon followed, and an RCP test requirement has been added to CSA B137.4. The required values for RCP testing are being added to the CSA Code of Practice in CSA Z662 Clause 12 for gas piping. ASTM just added an RCP requirement to its gas pipe standard ASTM D 2513. The corresponding AGA PMC project to develop RCP recommendations for required values from RCP testing is in progress.

In this article, we also discussed some results of RCP testing. In general, the HDPE materials have slightly greater RCP resistance than MDPE materials used in the gas industry. A more significant difference is observed when comparing unimodal PE materials to bimodal PE materials. Existing data indicate that bimodal HDPE materials show a significant increase in critical pressure compared to unimodal HDPE materials and also have considerably lower critical temperature values.

In addition, this bimodal technology has now just been introduced for MDPE. This bimodal MDPE material also has a significantly higher S4 critical pressure (10 bar vs. 1 bar) and a lower critical temperature than unimodal MDPE materials. With several PE resin manufacturers being able to produce bimodal PE materials, it is likely that in the near future, all PE materials used for the gas industry will be bimodal materials because of their superior RCP resistance.

Literature Cited

1. C. G. Bragaw, “Rapid Crack Propagation in Medium Density Polyethylene Pipe”, 7th Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe Symposium, 1980.
2. M. Wolters, “Some Experiences with the Modified Robertson Test Used for Study of Rapid Crack Propagation in PE Pipelines”, 8th Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe Symposium, 1983.
3. P. S. Leevers, “A New Small Scale Pipe Test for Rapid Crack Propagation”, 11th Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe Symposium, 1989.
4. P. Vanspeybroeck, “Rapid Crack Propagation in Polyethylene Gas Pipes – Correlation Factor Between Small-Scale and Full-Scale Testing”, 15th Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe Symposium, 1997.
5. P. Vanspeybroeck, “RCP, After 25 Years of Debate, Finally Mastered by Two ISO Tests”, 17th Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe Symposium, 2002.
6. J. Mason, “Establishing the Correlation Between S4 and Full Scale Rapid Crack Propagation Testing for Polyamide-11 (PA-11) Pipe”, Plastics Pipes XIII, 2006.
7. P. S. Leevers, “S4 Critical Temperature Tests: Procedure and Interpretation”, Plastics Pipes XII, 2004.
8. ISO 4437, “Buried polyethylene (PE) pipes for the supply of gaseous fuels — Metric series - Specifications”.
9. ASTM D 2513, “Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings”.
10. AGA PMC Draft White Paper, “Using RCP Data to Design Polyethylene Gas Distribution Systems”.
11. CSA B137.4, “Polyethylene (PE) Piping Systems for Gas Service”.
12. D. Chang and W. Michie, “Bimodal MDPE Pipe Resin For Improved Gas Distribution Pipe Performance”, AGA Operations Conference, 2008.
13. D. Chang and W. Michie, “Advanced Bimodal MDPE for Piping Applications”, Plastics Pipes XIV, 2008.

Sumber:

http://pipelineandgasjournal.com/rapid-crack-propagation-increasingly-important-gas-applications-status-report?page=show

How Does Directional Drilling Work?

Directional drilling has been an integral part of the oil and gas industry since the 1920s. While the technology has improved over the years, the concept of directional drilling remains the same: drilling wells at multiple angles, not just vertically, to better reach and produce oil and gas reserves. Additionally, directional drilling allows for multiple wells from the same vertical well bore, minimizing the wells' environmental impact.

Directional Drilling

Improvements in drilling sensors and global positioning technology have helped to make vast improvements in directional drilling technology. Today, the angle of a drillbit is controlled with intense accuracy through real-time technologies, providing the industry with multiple solutions to drilling challenges, increasing efficiency and decreasing costs.

Tools utilized in achieving directional drills include whipstocks, bottomhole assembly (BHA) configurations, three-dimensional measuring devices, mud motors and specialized drillbits.

Now, from a single location, various wells can be drilled at myriad angles, tapping reserves miles away and more than a mile below the surface.

Directional Drilling

Many times, a non-vertical well is drilled by simply pointing the drill in the direction it needs to drill. A more complex way of directional drilling utilizes a bend near the bit, as well as a downhole steerable mud motor. In this case, the bend directs the bit in a different direction from the wellbore axis when the entire drillstring is not rotating, which is achieved by pumping drilling fluid through the mud motor. Then, once the angle is reached, the complete drillstring is rotated, including the bend, ensuring the drillbit does not drill in a different direction from the wellbore axis.

One type of directional drilling, horizontal drilling, is used to drastically increase production. Here, a horizontal well is drilled across an oil and gas formation, increasing production by as much as 20 times more than that of its vertical counterpart. Horizontal drilling is any wellbore that exceeds 80 degrees, and it can even include more than a 90-degree angle (drilling upward).

A step-by-step approach to pipeline integrity management

BY KARINE KUTROWSKI, MURIELLE BOUCHARDY, AUDREY LE MERCIER, RODOLPHE JAMO, AND JEAN-CHARLES ANDRAUD, BUREAU VERITAS, PARIS, FRAN

As a testing, inspection and certification company acting in the field of asset integrity management, Bureau Veritas is in contact with many different operators. In the oil and gas market, all operators are preoccupied by the availability and integrity of their assets (structure, pressure vessels, rotating machinery, pipelines). This article explains the importance of implementing an integrity management system using a step-by-step approach.

The 360° view

In the early 1990s asset integrity management was addressed by increasing inspection programmes. In the late 1990s, increasingly sophisticated IT tools were developed, and today a complex mix of strategies, IT solutions and inspections are often employed. This can potentially lead to client dissatisfaction, since from an operator’s point of view ‘it costs a lot, it’s complicated and we’re not sure we really need it’.

Bureau Veritas attended a conference where an operator presented on the issues involved in implementing a highly sophisticated integrity management system. In particular the issue of anticipating difficulties related to methodologies, data, management of change, etc. In response, Bureau Veritas explained the difficulties of taking on such a wide scope at once. The operator immediately replied: “Guys, you have the 360° view, we don’t. You should teach us all that and warn us!”

No revolution but simply common sense

There are many different definitions of pipeline integrity management (PIM), including those listed within API 1160 and ASME B31.8S.

As a simple and understood-by-all definition, the following is proposed: “a system to ensure that a pipeline network is safe, reliable, sustainable and optimised.”

Bureau Veritas’ PIM step-by-step approach is comprised of the following six stages:

• Policy and strategy: where are you now, where do you want to go and what should you put in place to reach your target?
• Methodology: do you want/need to use a risk-based, threat-based or consequence-based approach or something else?
• Data: start thinking about data collection and modelling only once the policy and strategy, and methodology have been identified.
• Systems and tools: once policy and strategy have been defined, methodology has been selected and data gathered, select the most appropriate tool to use (simple or sophisticated software).
• Study and analysis: the tools will enable an assessment of the pipeline network and definition of your inspection plans.
• Inspection and expertise: after implementing the inspection plans, specific expertise should be used to analyse the inspection results. The knowledge gained will then be used during the regular PIM review.

Company policy and methodology is key

As a first step, it is important to properly define the roots of the PIM approach chosen. Local constraints, in-house specific requirements, international guidelines and adequacy will help set up the basis of the methodology to be developed.

The most appropriate approach will be found by referencing the local regulatory body’s policy (safety/inspections-oriented or risk/threat mitigation-oriented) along with common practices and existing procedures, the assets’ typology and age, the existing international best practices, and the level of in-house expertise. Several approaches may be considered, such as qualitative versus quantitative, threat-based versus damage-based, and probabilistic versus deterministic.

The identification of expected results (primary target) should be properly specified: restricted impact on the environment, corrosion-related failure prevention, inspection strategy, and means of mitigation. This will ensure that the PIM is set up in-line with the project targets.

The PIM methodology can then be chosen and tailored to the specific case.

A PIM approach that may be suitable for one operator may not be acceptable for another operator.

Only once the methodology is developed and understood by all project stakeholders can the data and tool issues be properly addressed.

Data and tools: you don’t need a video game

Data management is a crucial task within the PIM process. It should provide a complete system capable of delivering the right data in the right shape, at the right place and for the right purpose. This requires very organised and step-wise work.

By defining the PIM strategy, key performance indicators can be identified and data requirements can be defined. This refers to the format, accuracy, and frequency requirements of the data. It is also beneficial to think mid-term about PIM requirements, for example, consider the tools that will be used and any modifications that might be planned to the asset.

Finally, it is advised that data quality control/quality assurance is performed to obtain the ‘green light’ before processing data into the PIM process.

The same applies to the tools to be used. While there is a temptation to use a very ‘high tech’ tool, the most important consideration is for an easy-to-use tool that will monitor the health of the pipeline network and point out pipeline segments which require mitigation or inspection due to their threat or risk levels.

Depending on the pipeline’s length, a Microsoft Excel macro could be sufficient. However, an automated and integrated tool is necessary for longer pipelines or complicated networks.

Study and analysis: from integrity assessment to inspection plans

Now with an operational and clear pipeline database along with a PIM tool, the chosen PIM methodology can be implemented. The PIM tool will enable the first integrity assessment to be carried out – ‘first’ because PIM is a continuous loop where previous results are used to improve the following assessments. Following this, a ‘pipeline prioritisation’ can be obtained, which will form the basis to analyse and understand the pipeline network's condition. Frrom here, the PIM can be expanded to include a mitigation plan plus inspection plan.

Here an important question arises: what actions should be performed in order to reduce the threat/risk level on the pipeline? Should the inspection frequency be increased, a mitigation action applied, or both? The decision should rely on the inspection and mitigation policies defined in the first step of the PIM process.

Inspection and expertise: method qualification and trustworthy results

Undoubtedly, one of the most visible steps of the PIM process is the inspection itself. There are many inspection techniques for pipelines but the most widely used are magnetic-flux leakage and ultrasonic testing. The in-line inspection provider should be selected very carefully, evaluating their qualification by referring to the specific requirements of the project.

The most critical part of this process is the analysis of results and the expertise required to obtain crucial information on the actual condition of the pipeline.

An effective PIM should be comparable to a high-quality management system.

This article started by outlining that a PIM is a system allowing operators to ensure that their pipeline networks operate in a safe, reliable, sustainable and optimised way.

If neglected and unused, even the most expensive and ‘high tech’ PIM solution will fail to be beneficial. A PIM needs to be accepted and embedded into the company’s processes.

Therefore, as a conclusion, Bureau Veritas would advise operators to keep in mind that a PIM, like a quality management system, is a continuous process. Therefore it is important to break down the PIM plan into manageable steps.

Acknowledgements

The author and co-authors of this article would like to express their gratitude to their customers, in particular TOTAL (Worldwide), CuuLong Joint Operating Company (CLJOC – Vietnam) and KazTransOil (KTO – Kazakhstan) who have fed Bureau Veritas’s thoughts about PIM and asset integrity management (AIM) in general. Not only have those successful and friendly collaborations inspired Bureau Veritas to develop its AIM ‘step-by-step approach’ but have also allowed a deeper knowledge of AIM which, we trust, will be useful to other pipeline operators.

Sumber:

http://pipelinesinternational.com/news/a_step-by-step_approach_to_pipeline_integrity_management/077277/