4.5 Article

A systems-based approach for modeling of microbiologically influenced corrosion implemented using static and dynamic Bayesian networks

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104108

关键词

Systems based model; Microbiologically influenced corrosion; Process safety; Bayesian network; Dynamic Bayesian network

资金

  1. Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is a microbial community assisted degradation of materials affecting chemical processing and oil and gas industries. MIC has been implicated in incidents involving loss of containment of hazardous hydrocarbons which have led to fires and explosions, economic and environmental impact. The interplay between abiotic environmental factors and dynamic biotic factors in MIC are poorly understood. There is a lack of mechanistic understanding of MIC and very few models are available to predict or assess MIC threat. Here we report on the development of a model to assess the susceptibility to MIC. The high-resolution model utilizes 60 independent nodes, including operational and historical failure analysis data, and is built by combining empirical relationships between the abiotic and biotic variables impacting MIC. Both static and dynamic Bayesian-network (BN) approaches were used to combine heuristic and quantitative states of variables to ultimately yield a susceptibility measure for MIC. A confidence-in-information metric was generated to reflect the amount of data used in the estimation. A susceptibility to MIC of 45%-60% was estimated by the model for ten different scenarios simulated using case-studies from literature. The susceptibility to MIC estimated by these scenarios was further interpreted in the context of these cases. This systems-based MIC model can be utilized as an independent estimator of susceptibility or can be incorporated as a sub-model within comprehensive safety threat assessment models currently utilized in industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据