The approach to gas pipeline risk and integrity management in the US, involving the development of integrity management plans for High Consequence Areas (HCA), is usually qualitative, as outlined in ASME B31.8S. Depending on the engineering judgement of the assessment team this can lead to a wide variety of results making risk comparison between pipelines difficult. Qualitative risk ranking methods are popular in Europe, but quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is also used for setting acceptable risk levels and as an input to risk and integrity management planning. It is possible to use quantitative risk assessment methods to compare the levels of risk inherent in different pipeline design codes. This paper discusses the use of pipeline quantitative risk assessment methods to analyse pipelines designed to ASME B31.8 and UK IGE/TD/1 (equivalent to PD 8010, published by BSI, for the design of gas pipelines) codes. The QRA utilises predictive models for consequence assessment, e.g. pipeline blowdown and thermal radiation effects, and failure frequency, in determining the risk levels due to an operational pipeline. The results of the analysis illustrate how the risk levels inherent in the two codes compare for different class locations & minimum housing separation distances. The impact of code requirements on design factor, depth of burial, population density and the impact of third party activity on overall risk levels are also discussed.
Skip Nav Destination
2006 International Pipeline Conference
September 25–29, 2006
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Conference Sponsors:
- Pipeline Division
ISBN:
0-7918-4263-0
PROCEEDINGS PAPER
A Comparison of Inherent Risk Levels in ASME B31.8 and UK Gas Pipeline Design Codes
Graham Goodfellow,
Graham Goodfellow
Penspen Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Search for other works by this author on:
Jane Haswell
Jane Haswell
Pipeline Integrity Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Search for other works by this author on:
Graham Goodfellow
Penspen Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Jane Haswell
Pipeline Integrity Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Paper No:
IPC2006-10507, pp. 1085-1096; 12 pages
Published Online:
October 2, 2008
Citation
Goodfellow, G, & Haswell, J. "A Comparison of Inherent Risk Levels in ASME B31.8 and UK Gas Pipeline Design Codes." Proceedings of the 2006 International Pipeline Conference. Volume 3: Materials and Joining; Pipeline Automation and Measurement; Risk and Reliability, Parts A and B. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. September 25–29, 2006. pp. 1085-1096. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2006-10507
Download citation file:
25
Views
0
Citations
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Articles
Effect of Condition Monitoring on Risk Mitigation for Steam Turbines in the Forest Products Industry
ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B (September,2017)
Quantifying the Combined Effects of Human Errors and Component Failures
J. Mech. Des (October,2021)
A New Risk Assessment Model to Check Safety Threats to Long-Distance Pipelines
J. Pressure Vessel Technol (October,2022)
Related Chapters
USE OF A GEOHAZARD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO REDUCE PIPELINE FAILURE RATES
Pipeline Integrity Management Under Geohazard Conditions (PIMG)
A PSA Update to Reflect Procedural Changes (PSAM-0217)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
Managing Risk: Effective Use of Structural Reliability Assessment (SRA) and Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for Sabah-Sarawak Gas Pipeline (SSGP)
Pipeline Integrity Management Under Geohazard Conditions (PIMG)