bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Integrity of Small Angle Mitered Joints
Authors: Zheng Gavin (Guowei) , Colquhoun Iain , Paviglianiti Joe 
Published: January 2019

Miter bends are permitted for use in the oil and gas industry in a variety of configurations. This paper addresses small angle miter joints used to correct minor misalignments.
The CSA Z662-15 standard (Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems) states in the construction section (Clause 6.2.3(g)) that “mitred bends shall not be used”. However, a note accompanying the clause states that “deflections up to 3 degrees caused by misalignment are not considered to be mitred bends.” Nonetheless, concerns continue to be raised that stresses introduced due to this misalignment can affect safety and operation of pipelines.
This paper reviews literature of failures associated with mitered joints and the theoretical development of stresses in miters, and presents results from a linearized sensitivity analysis of buried mitered joints under pressure and thermal loading based on ASME B31.1 and B31.3 criteria. The paper contains an analysis of the origins of CSA-Z662 Clause 6.2.3(g). Recognizing that the stresses introduced by miters are discontinuity stresses, the paper discusses the effects of such stresses, including the use of miters in cyclic service.
Recognizing also the strong dependence of D/t ratio on the discontinuity stress, the paper suggests a modification to the Z662 approach to account for this effect. This modification would provide guidance to the use of miters to effect small deflections both during design and construction of piping.
Use of Bowties for Pipeline Safety Management
Authors: Pettitt Glenn , Pennicott Philip 
Published: January 2019

Bowtie diagrams have become a widely-used method for demonstrating the relationship between the causes and consequences of hazardous events following the identification of Major Accident Hazards (MAHs). They are particularly useful for illustrating how safeguarding measures protect against particular threats or mitigate the various consequences of an incident. Bowtie diagrams have been widely used in a range of industries for over twenty years and are widespread in the upstream oil and gas industry, as well as other high hazard industries such as mining and nuclear.
Bowtie diagrams are used for a range of purposes. At their simplest, they provide an overview of the measures in place to prevent and mitigate hazardous events, and as such are valuable additions to training programmes. A bowtie diagram provides an excellent platform to show regulatory authorities, trainees and new employees the various threats to a pipeline system, and what barriers are in place to prevent and control major accidents, such that the risks are as low as reasonably practicable.
The bowtie process may be used during design, construction, operations and decommissioning. The bowtie for construction is different to that for design and operations, being more to do with occupational safety rather that loss of containment. However, the construction bowtie diagram still plays a vital role in minimising risk.
Whilst the typical failure mechanisms for pipelines are generally well-established during operations, bowties have a key role in informing senior management of the measures in place to reduce risk. Furthermore, a large proportion of major accidents may occur at above ground installations (AGIs), and bowtie diagrams provide a mechanism to help management in the protection of personnel and potentially of nearby populations. For both cross-country pipelines and AGIs, the effectiveness of each barrier can be established to ensure that the risk of loss of containment is minimised.
More detailed bowties may be used to assist in identifying safety critical elements (SCEs) or safety critical tasks; developing performance standards and defining process safety performance indicators. Often, the hardware shown by the barriers may be considered as SCEs, particularly in the case of effective barriers, such as vibration detection along the right-of-way (RoW) (prevention) or gas detection at AGIs (recovery). Where such barriers are defined as key to a major threat, the bowtie diagram illustrates the importance of good maintenance systems to ensure that the barriers have a high reliability. Thus, by defining the SCEs in a logical manner, bowties may be a key element in managing the risk from a pipeline system.
Safety Level on Different Offshore Pipeline Design Criteria: A Comparison Between DNV-OS-F101 and API RP-1111 Codes
Authors: D’Angelo Luis , Thorsen Hans M. , Fyrileiv Olav , Collberg Leif , Furtado Sonia 
Published: January 2019

Submarine pipelines are more often than before required to operate in harsh environments, especially for systems deployed in ultra-deep water. In order to minimize the installation tension due to the hanged section, they are installed empty and therefore the external pressure is often the prime load parameter for the design.
New discoveries and associated technical challenges have generated important research and development endeavors in a wide range of disciplines in order to improve efficiency and reliability, but also keeping the risks associated with the new scenarios within an acceptable range. Some aspects that can be mentioned include, for instance, steel line grade improvements and manufacturing innovations of pipe products; more powerful lay vessels and development of new pipeline installation methods; determination of the mechanical behavior and the expected failure modes of concern for deep and long pipelines under combined loads; and the improved different design criteria like the DNV-OS-F101 (1) and API RP-1111 (2) codes.
The intention of this paper is to review and compare three different pipeline design criteria well established in the oil and gas industry. The pipeline wall thickness design for pipe pressure containment (bursting), local buckling (system collapse) and propagating buckling for DNV-OS-F101 (1) and API RP-1111 (2) are discussed as well as the parameters used, definitions, safety philosophy and code limitations. A pipeline example is used to illustrate and compare the results.
Re-Introducing the Benefits of Terrain Mapping for Pipeline Routing and Design
Authors: Johnston Katherine , Waddington Betsy , Leir Mark , Kenny Corey 
Published: January 2019

Terrain mapping is the process of the interpretation of aerial photographs, LiDAR and satellite imagery plus field based ground truthing to delineate and characterize terrain polygons with similar surficial materials, landforms and geological processes [1]. For new pipeline projects, detailed terrain mapping is usually completed at a map scale of 1:20,000 corresponding to ground accuracy, at best, of 20 m. Although typically used to support the forestry industry in planning and developing forestry operations in British Columbia, Canada [2], and despite the rapid advancements of remote sensing technology, the art and science of terrain mapping continues to be an essential. albeit somewhat forgotten, tool for new and existing pipeline projects in a variety of terrain settings.
For new pipeline projects, a quality terrain mapping product has been be used to characterize ground conditions and support the estimation of design inputs for numerous aspects of pipeline routing and design [3,4]. It is the backbone of most terrain and geohazard related tasks on a pipeline project and it is useful through many stages of a project’s development [5]. At routing and feasibility stages of a project, terrain mapping can be used to efficiently identify geohazards to avoid and to allow comparison of the terrain between different corridor options. Later on at the early design stages, terrain mapping can be used to develop and maintain a geohazard inventory to support geohazard risk assessment and design through geohazards that could not be avoided [6], delineate areas of shallow groundwater where buoyancy control and construction dewatering maybe required, help estimate soil spring parameters to support pipe stress analysis, delineate areas of shallow bedrock to support construction cost estimates and planning [8], and to identify sources of sands and gravels that maybe used for pipeline construction.
This paper is intended to re-introduce the ongoing benefits of terrain mapping for new pipeline projects and describe how terrain mapping can cost-effectively support a pipeline project through its lifecycle of feasibility, design, and construction. Examples of the benefits of terrain mapping for routing and design of two proposed transmission pipelines in northern BC are presented. This work will be of interest to project managers, engineers, scientists and regulators involved with routing, design, and construction of new pipelines projects.
Training and Education: The Great Competence Divide...
Authors: Unger Michelle , Hopkins Phil 
Published: January 2019

All industries need ‘competent’ staff, and pipeline standards and regulations expect all staff in the pipeline industry to be competent. This is emphasized by a North American pipeline regulator stating in its report on a failure: ...the management of training and competency is particularly critical for an organization [operating pipelines]’.
Competence is a mix of skills, knowledge, and experience, and is obtained from training, mentoring, and experience. Consequently, industry knows how to develop competencies, but how can companies prove their staff are competent? Staff can attend the many training courses on offer, but how can the industry know these courses are the required quality, and that staff have acquired and absorbed the necessary skills/training?
This evidence and demonstration are major problems in the pipeline industry, and need urgent solutions. Fortunately, the industry can learn from academia, who have been providing demonstrable skills for centuries.
Most current industry training courses are presented by good trainers, using good materials, through good training providers. Unfortunately, most of these courses/trainers/organisers are not accredited by any reputable organisation, the materials are not quality assured, the necessary competence levels are neither specified nor defined, and there is no assessment to demonstrate understanding. This learning process may be good and delivered in good faith, but it is disorganised, unregulated, with no control or benchmarking, and no assessment. This leads to a lack of credibility.
Academia has a well-established, but relatively simple system to ensure its learning process is credible. It has: courses that are assessed to a specified learning level, with clear objectives, outcomes, and qualification requirements; materials that are independently quality assured; lecturers that are qualified to teach; and, an assessment, qualification, and certification process that demonstrates the student has acquired all the stated skills. This leads to credibility.
This paper assesses current training in the pipeline industry, and highlights the good points and bad points, and the deficiencies in the learning process, that prevent demonstrable competencies. It then describes how academia has a rigorous learning process that allows this demonstration.
The paper ends with a ‘way forward’ for the pipeline industry, in its goal of demonstrating competency in its workforce.
Application of the Discrete Element Method (DEM) to Evaluate Pipeline Response to Slope Movement
Authors: Fredj Abdelfettah , Dinovitzer Aaron , Hassannejadasl Amir , Gailing Richard , Sen Millan 
Published: January 2019

The long linear nature of buried pipelines results in the risk of interaction with a range of geotechnical hazards including active slopes and land surface subsidence areas. Ground movement induced by these geotechnical hazards can subject a pipeline to axial, lateral flexural, and vertical flexural loading. The techniques to predict pipeline displacements, loads, stresses or strains are not well described in design standards or codes of practice. The results of geotechnical site observation, successive in-line inspection or pipeline instrumentation are used to infer pipeline displacement or strain accumulation and these techniques are often augmented through the application of finite element analysis. The practice of using finite element analysis for pipe-soil interaction has developed in recent years and is proving to be a useful tool in evaluating the pipeline behavior in response to ground movement.
This paper considers pipeline response to geotechnical hazard-induced loading scenarios related to slope movement transverse to the pipeline axis. The details of the three-dimensional LS-DYNA-based BMT pipe-soil interaction model employing a discrete element method (DEM) are presented in this paper. The validation of the numerical models through comparison with medium-scale physical pipe-soil interaction tests are described to demonstrate that the models are capable of accurately simulating real world events. The models are further calibrated for nominal soil types to replicate the pipe-soil load displacement properties outlined in ASCE guideline recommendations by developing responses that closely agree with these results from the physical trials and engineering judgement.
The utility of advanced pipe-soil interaction modelling in supporting strain-based pipeline integrity management or design is demonstrated by presenting the results of geotechnical hazard numerical simulations. These simulations are used to describe the sensitivity of pipeline displacements and strains to the demands of these geotechnical events and develop relationships between the geotechnical event key parameters and pipeline response.
Practical IMP Performance Metrics
Authors: Konell Jeremiah P. , Van Schenck Jack , Bratton Joseph P. , Polasik Steven J. 
Published: January 2019

Annually or as events occur, operators submit data to various regulatory agencies about the operation, maintenance and extent of their assets. Many of these figures are used by the public, non-profit organizations and private companies to independently conduct assessments about operators, ranging from safety to quality assurance to scope and nature of product deliveries.
The Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the National Energy Board (NEB), and other industry organizations have recently put an emphasis on more meaningful metrics by releasing guidelines and leading discussions at industry conferences and workshops.
In order to derive more strategic accuracy and pertinence, Explorer Pipeline Company (Explorer) and Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. (DNV GL) have developed a procedural effort to develop meaningful metrics. Several derivative benefits come from this effort such as support for calculating cost-benefit / ROI figures for maintenance projects, justification for compliance-plus activities and, most importantly, a more informed perspective of operational risk.
A renewed approach to this effort is to organize the more meaningful factors into three categories: (1) Metrics of job roles and tasks within Explorer’s Asset Integrity staff, (2) Other existing influential metrics (3) Regulatory metrics.
Using this approach, Explorer defined well-targeted, unitized metrics, each with a meaningful basis. Explorer anticipates the development of these more meaningful metrics to support the transparency sought by regulators and other stakeholders, benchmark and continually evaluate our Asset Integrity program and possibly support the development of practical metrics for the pipeline industry.
Unlocking the Power of Incident Investigation: Building a Strong Pipeline Safety Management System From a Solid Foundation
Authors: Weichel Megan 
Published: January 2019

As many pipeline operators embark on the journey of developing a Pipeline Safety Management System (PSMS), the first question is typically, “Where do we begin?” Management systems can be intimidating, and the thought of taking on the task of developing one can seem overwhelming. Companies want to know if it is necessary to start from scratch, if they can use existing processes or programs, and which step to take first for a successful PSMS. There are many ways to begin, but one of the most effective ways is to first ask two questions, “What do we already have?” and “What are our biggest problems?” Armed with these answers, a path forward can be developed, and the foundation for the management system can begin to take shape.
One effective way to choose where to begin when developing the PSMS is to determine which elements have been related to the root causes of incidents and near misses in the past. Likewise, continuing to determine and monitor the causes of incidents after the implementation of the PSMS will provide guidance for continual improvement of the management system. Using the elements and sub-elements of existing management system standards or practices, such as API RP 1173, Pipeline Safety Management System Requirements [1], as a starting point for determining root causes is a good way to break down, categorize, and trend the causes of each incident. Combining these with a gap analysis of both the undocumented and documented processes and procedures will provide a basis for determining the priorities for development and implementation of each management system element.
Long-term efficacy of 1–1.2 kHz subthreshold spinal cord stimulation following failed traditional spinal cord stimulation: a retrospective case series
Authors: Kapural Leonardo , Harandi Shervin 
Published: January 2019

Background and objectiveWe investigated whether an effective long-term pain relief could be achieved using subthreshold 1–1.2 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) among patients who were initially implanted with traditional paresthesia-based SCS but who failed to maintain an adequate pain relief.MethodsRetrospective chart review was conducted of patients’ electronic records who underwent a trial of subthreshold 1–1.2 kHz SCS. One hundred and nine patients implanted and programmed at traditional paresthesia-based frequencies 40–90 Hz (low-frequency SCS) with unsatisfactory pain relief or unpleasant paresthesias were identified. Patients’ settings were switched to 1–1.2 kHz and 60–210 µs, and variable amplitude adjusted to subthreshold. Pain scores and medication usage were collected. Complete data are presented on 95 patients.ResultsData were collected from 36 men and 59 women who were converted from above-threshold 40–90 Hz SCS to 1–1.2 kHz SCS, with a minimum follow-up of 12  months. Nearly a third (63/95 or 66.3%) of the subjects deemed 1–1.2 kHz SCS ineffective and returned to low-frequency SCS within 1 week after switch, and one-sixth (16/95 or 16.8%) of the subjects returned to low-frequency SCS within 1 month. Only 13 (13.7%) subjects continued using 1–1.2 kHz subthreshold SCS for 3 months or longer and 2.1% (2/95) of subjects continued using it at 12 months. A comparison of their pain scores and opioid use before and during the time we used 1–1.2 kHz SCS revealed no significant difference.ConclusionThe results from our single center failed to show additional long-term clinical benefit of 1–1.2 kHz subthreshold SCS in patients with chronic pain failing traditional low-frequency SCS.
Efficacy of the ketamine metabolite (2R,6R)-hydroxynorketamine in mice models of pain
Authors: Kroin Jeffrey S , Das Vaskar , Moric Mario , Buvanendran Asokumar 
Published: January 2019

Background and objectivesKetamine has been shown to reduce chronic pain; however, the adverse events associated with ketamine makes it challenging for use outside of the perioperative setting. The ketamine metabolite (2R,6R)-hydroxynorketamine ((2R,6R)-HNK) has a therapeutic effect in mice models of depression, with minimal side effects. The objective of this study is to determine if (2R,6R)-HNK has efficacy in both acute and chronic mouse pain models.MethodsMice were tested in three pain models: nerve-injury neuropathic pain, tibia fracture complex regional pain syndrome type-1 (CRPS1) pain, and plantar incision postoperative pain. Once mechanical allodynia had developed, systemic (2R,6R)-HNK or ketamine was administered as a bolus injection and compared with saline control in relieving allodynia.ResultsIn all three models, 10 mg/kg ketamine failed to produce sustained analgesia. In the neuropathic pain model, a single intraperitoneal injection of 10 mg/kg (2R,6R)-HNK elevated von Frey thresholds over a time period of 1–24hours compared with saline (F=121.6, p<0.0001), and three daily (2R,6R)-HNK injections elevated von Frey thresholds for 3 days compared with saline (F=33.4, p=0.0002). In the CRPS1 model, three (2R,6R)-HNK injections elevated von Frey thresholds for 3 days and then an additional 4 days compared with saline (F=116.1, p<0.0001). In the postoperative pain model, three (2R,6R)-HNK injections elevated von Frey thresholds for 3 days and then an additional 5 days compared with saline (F=60.6, p<0.0001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that (2R,6R)-HNK is superior to ketamine in reducing mechanical allodynia in acute and chronic pain models and suggests it may be a new non-opioid drug for future therapeutic studies.
Evaluation of the B-Smart manometer and the CompuFlo computerized injection pump technology for accurate needle-tip injection pressure measurement during peripheral nerve blockade
Authors: Weisman Robyn S , Bhavsar Nirav P , Schuster Kathleen A , Gebhard Ralf E 
Published: January 2019

Background and ObjectivesThe exact mechanism of peripheral nerve blocks causing/leading to nerve injury remains controversial. Evidence from animal experiments suggests that intrafascicular injection resulting in high injection pressure has the potential to rupture nerve fascicles and may consequently cause permanent nerve injury and neurological deficits. The B-Smart (BS) in-line manometer and the CompuFlo (CF) computerized injection pump technology are two modalities used for monitoring pressure during regional anesthesia. This study sought to explore the accuracy of these two technologies in measuring needle-tip pressures in a simulated environment.MethodsIn seven simulated needle–syringe combinations, the BS and the CF devices were connected in series through a closed system and attached to a digital manometer at the tip of various needles. The pressures were evaluated in three trials per needle-syringe combination. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy (F1 Score) were determined for each needle type and overall.ResultsFor pressures ≥15 psi and ≥20 psi, respectively, the CF device demonstrated a sensitivity of 100%, 100%; specificity of 96%, 98%; positive predictive value 93%, 93%; and negative predictive value of 100%, 100%. The BS device demonstrated a sensitivity of 60%, 100%; specificity of 99%, 95%; positive predictive value of 96%, 85%; and negative predictive value of 85%, 100%. Accuracy, as measured by the F1 Score, for detecting a pressure of ≥15 psi was 0.96 for the CF and 0.74 for the BS.ConclusionsFuture research is needed to explore in-vivo performance and evaluate whether either of these devices can impact on clinical outcomes.