Hazard Assessment and Pipeline Design

  • K. A. J. Williams
Part of the Advances in Underwater Technology, Ocean Science and Offshore Engineering book series (AUTOO, volume 24)


As a result of recent developments it is expected that Formal Safety Assessments will have to be performed for all offshore installations in the UK Sector of the North Sea. In this paper the main elements of these assessments and application to pipeline design are briefly introduced. The information required for these assessments is discussed and sources of historical data and information that are available are presented. Finally incidents which have caused damage to pipelines in the past are described.


Hazard Assessment Mooring Line Hazard Identification SUBSEA Pipeline Pipeline Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Department of Energy (DEn). Offshore Installations Formal Safety Assessments, Discussion Document, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute of Petroleum (IP6). Pipeline Safety Code. Model Code of Practice, Part 6, 4th Edition, London, December 1982 and 1986 Supplement.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Det Norske Veritas. Safety and Reliability of Subsea Production Systems, Guideline No 1- 85, April 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E & P Forum. A Review of Submarine Pipeline Performance in the North Sea 1975–1982, Report No. 102, London, October 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cannon, A.G., Lewis, R.C., and Scrivener, C. The Reliability of Pipe Systems Operating in the British Sector of The North Sea; Paper 4A/R, Reliability 85 Conference Proceedings, UKAEA, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simpson, S. Accidents and Leakage, A Statistical Review, Pipelines and the Offshore Environment Seminar. London, February 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lees, F.P., Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. Volumes 1 and 2, Butterworth 1980.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parry, S.T. A Review of Hazard Identification Techniques and their Application to Major Accident Hazards. SRD R 379, UKAEA 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lowe, D.R.T. and Solomon, C.H. Hazard Identification Procedures - International Study Group on Risk Analysis, I. Chem. E. Symposium Series No. 80. Harrowgate, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Energy (DEn). Submarine Pipelines Guidance Notes, London, October 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Det Norske Veritas. Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems. Oslo, Norway, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Det Norske Veritas. Rules for the Design. Construction and Inspection of Submarine Pipelines and Pipeline Risers. Oslo, Norway, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    BS 5760 Reliability of systems, equipments and components Part 3: Guide to reliability practices: examples 1982Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    US Military Standard MIL-STD-1629, Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode. Effects and Criticalitv Analysis. November 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.Brighton
    Smith, L.M. and de Waard, C. Selection Criteria for Materials in Oil and Gas Processing Plant, U.K. Corrosion’87, Brighton, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.London
    Department of Energy. The Integrity of Offshore Pipeline Girth Welds. Offshore Technology Report, OTH 86 233, HMSO,London, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maxey, W.A., and Eiber, R.J. Fractures in Pipeline - Main Influencing Factors, Presented at Fracture in Gas Pipelines Seminar. Sponsored by CBMM and CNIICHERMET, Moscow, March 1984.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tenge, P. and Karlsen A. Influence of Weld Defects on Low Cycle-High Strain Fatigue Properties of Welds in Offshore Pipelines, Norwegian Maritime Research, No. 3, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones D.G. The Significance of Mechanical Damage in Pipelines, 3R International, July 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maxey, W.A. Analysis of Outside Force Damage to Pipelines, Oil & Gas Journal, May 18, May 25, June 15, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andersen, T.R. and Sontvedt, T., Monitoring and Prediction of Internal Pipeline Corrosion, Conf. on Pipeline Integrity Monitoring. Aberdeen, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ellinas, C.P., Walker, A.C., Palmer, A.C., and Howard, C.R. Subsea Pipeline Cost Reductions Achieved Through the Use of Limit State and Reliability Methods, Offshore Petroleum Technology Conference. IBC, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mann, N. R., et al. Methods for Statistical Analysis of Reliability and Life Data. J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    QREDA - Offshore Reliability Data Handbook. 1st edition; Pennwell Books, 1984.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Henley, E.H., and Kumamoto, H. Reliability Engineering, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1981.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Royal Society. Risk Assessment A Study Group Report, London 1983.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Department of Energy, Study on Offshore Installations: Protection Against Impact. Offshore Technology Report, OTI 88 535, HMSO, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Williams, K.A.J. and Ellinas C.P., Use of Databases in Offshore Engineering, Reliability’89, Brighton, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams, K.A.J. Application of Risk Assessment to Pipeline and Subsea Systems, Short Course in Offshore Pipeline Engineering. IBC, London, October 1989.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hokstad, P. Reliability Data for Subsea Pipelines. Report No STF75 A89037, SINTEF, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Underwater Technology 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. A. J. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.AME LtdGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations