If you have a question of any sort about interpretation of AS 2885 feel free to comment on this post or contact the AS2885.info team via the Contact page. Someone in the team will respond (eventually – most of us have busy day jobs).
This blog exists to help users of the AS 2885 suite of Standards. It is a companion to the wiki at AS2885.info and is the best way to raise questions to be added to the wiki for the benefit of all users of AS 2885. For more information about both sites see the About page.
My recent webinar “Failure is Normal: A Tale of Two Bridges” generated some encouraging feedback, so I could be persuaded to present more webinars, if readers indicate sufficient interest. A couple of categories of possible topics come to mind; engineering practice, and more about learning from failure.
Engineering Practice 1) The Benefits of Engaging Independent Consultants (A discussion forum in which other independent consultants could also share their advice about how engaging independent consultants adds value to the pipeline industry.) 2) Dealing with Commercial Pressures on Engineers (My recommendations, plus an interactive session in which attendees are invited to speak up about pressure situations they have encountered and how they dealt with them.) 3) ECI and Relationship Contracting: • Common contracting strategy options and appropriate application for each; • Basics of “two stage” relationship contracting, risk sharing and mitigation, workshops recommended; pitfalls, advantages and benefits.
Learning from Failure 4) Sources of disaster information – Pros and Cons of each (Book recommendations, news articles, safety websites, Wikipedia, Royal Commissions, Inquiries, Coroner’s Reports, etc.)
If you liked “A Tale of Two Bridges”, there’s a couple more “disaster parallels” opportunities I could develop and present such as: 5) Runaway Trains: The Lac Megantic disaster and the BHP ore train in the Pilbara. 6) Deadly Thrill Rides: The Royal Adelaide Show (2014); Dreamworld (2016); and USA events.
There may be other topics that you would like to see addressed in a webinar, so just reply to let me know what interests you. Ted Metcalfe
There is enough interest in Ted Metcalfe’s book list, and the idea of learning from failures, that it’s time to set up a book club. It’s a book club for people in the pipeline engineering industry, interested in learning from failures. Answering the question “what happened?”, and being better engineers and pipeliners because we’ve paid attention to the lessons.
In a “book club” type of environment, we can assign ‘required reading’, but more importantly, there is the opportunity to discuss what we’ve read, learned or thought about each month. That’s what I’m looking forward to.
The first meeting, a kickoff meeting to check interest and participation, will be held on Monday August 1st , 16:30 – 17:30 AEST, via either Zoom or MS Teams.
Put it in your calendar for now. In the next week or so, I’ll set up a signup link and meeting invitations to confirm interest. That will appear here on the blog.
It may have been Einstein who famously said “The more I learn, the more I realise how much I don’t know.“
More simply put, “We don’t know what we don’t know”.
Gaining awareness of things which have not turned out well for others helps us to get better at what we do so that we don’t repeat mistakes others have made.
Industry codes and standards record the wisdom and experience accumulated by many engineers over many years for the benefit of all engineers, and these need to be updated regularly for various reasons including knowledge of things which have not turned out well.
In his book The Making of an Expert Engineer, Prof. James Trevelyan states at Page 57:
Technical standards have been created through the experience of other engineers and are carefully negotiated within each specialised engineering discipline, striking a balance between restrictions to promote safety and ease of use, while also avoiding constraints that would inhibit innovation and design freedom.
That’s an excellent description of what the engineers on our Standards committees do all the time.
In the Australian pipeline industry we have an excellent Standard (AS 2885) to work with because we revise it regularly to keep up to date with new information. Awareness of poor outcomes is one of the things that has informed the continued evolution of the Australian Standard in a way that pipeline engineers in other countries envy.
Here’s some examples of links between past events and the current Standard:
Part 1 Clause 13.2 (a) requires project design records include as-built data.
Example: Due to a contractual issue, the as-built survey data for an HDD was not provided to the client. A few years later, during third-party works near the HDD, the original design drawings were assumed to be accurate. They were not. The third-party works punctured the pipeline far below the surface, and the client ended up replacing the entire HDD string.
The AS2885 suite requires detailed attention to SCC and Fracture Control. In 1982, a major rupture of the Moomba Sydney Pipeline over some distance prompted a lot of research and investigation associated with Stress Corrosion Cracking and the importance of Fracture Control to arrest running fractures. The outputs of the research and investigations have resulted in revisions to AS 2885 in several areas.
AIV and FIV(Vibration) AS2885.1 now includes clear delineation between “linepipe” and “piping”, and makes specific reference to AIV and FIV as potential failure modes. The unexpected discovery of an integrity threat on a relatively new pipeline system, and the research associated with mitigation of that threat, have now been incorporated in to AS2885 as revisions in several areas including the vibration Appendix.
Knowledge of such events leads to a better understanding of the intent of the Standard, but sometimes the background for changes in the Standard is not widely known by those who use it.
Sharing of stories about things which have not turned out as planned is one way to increase awareness for better understanding of the intent of the Standard.
Sometimes that requires sharing stories with others about things that we ourselves have not done well, which can be embarrassing.
Despite the reluctance to share such stories, the AS2885.info team and others believe that we can and should get better at helping others learn through sharing stories.
If you are intrigued by the concept of sharing stories to help others better understand what went wrong and avoid making the same mistakes, please contact us.
Experienced engineers are able to make engineering judgements with confidence. Some of the reasons why pipeline engineers using AS2885 may benefit from asking a question in relation to confidence include:
1) Maybe you are required to make a decision in relation to application of the Standard, but just don’t quite have the confidence to do so, and a second opinion would help.
…I don’t know enough about this, but I’ll bet someone else around here does…
2) Maybe you have been told by your supervisor or an experienced colleague that a certain clause means one thing, but their interpretation does not seem quite right to you, and you would like a second opinion without openly challenging your colleagues.
…that’s not what I think it means; I need more guidance here…
3) Maybe you have witnessed what you think might be an incorrect or inappropriate practice, and before making any fuss about it in your own workplace you would like to quietly get a second opinion from an independent source, without disclosing why you are asking.
…I’m pretty sure this isn’t right, but I need confirmation…
4) Maybe you are involved with modifications to a rather old pipeline for which not all of the usual design and inspection material is available, and you are unsure as to exactly how the current Standard should be applied.
…this pipeline is older than me, and it needs help… and so do I…
5) Maybe you are afraid that your question will be considered by other as a dumb question, and you don’t want to ask in the office and risk looking silly for not knowing the answer already.
…I’m not dumb, but I feel that way…
This last point prompts me to describe how I learned a very important lesson about asking questions quite early in my career when I was working in a sour gas processing plant:
Amoco Canada processed a lot of highly toxic hydrogen sulphide gas and the gas plant where I was working had experienced a serious accident. As a very junior engineer I was allowed to attend the meeting of management convened to examine the causes and work out a way forward, but I didn’t understand everything that was being discussed.
At one point I bravely put up my hand and said “Can I ask a stupid question?”
The plant manager replied calmly from the other end of the table “Son, in this industry, there are no stupid questions, only dead people who failed to ask the questions, so how can we help you?”
Ever since then I have had the confidence to ask a question when I didn’t understand something.
You can ask the AS2885.info team any questions which might help you be a better pipeline engineer – that’s what we’re here for.
We learn new information in many ways, and for many different reasons. Even when we are not trying to learn, or don’t think we need to learn, we seem to gather valuable information.
For some people, lessons are really only learned if they are learned the hard way, from the bitter experience of having done something wrong with unexpected (sometimes embarrassing, painful or expensive) consequences.
It’s a lot easier to learn by asking questions.
In the Introduction of Part 0, it is acknowledged that AS2885 sets out specific requirements in some areas, but notes that these do not replace the need for appropriate experience and engineering judgement.
In Clause 1.5.7 of AS2885 Part 0, competence is defined as having an appropriate combination of knowledge, skills and experience to safely and effectively perform the task required as requirements for users of AS2885.
Users of AS2885 are required to apply engineering judgement.
It can be said that engineering judgement requires a combination of both knowledge and the confidence to make decisions, where:
– Knowledge is the accumulation of relevant factual material, and
– Confidence is the self-courage required to interpret both the relevant circumstances being considered and the application of the Standard to those circumstances, and to make decisions on that basis.
Experienced engineers have learned that one of the easiest and most important ways to learn is to simply ask questions, and for pipeline engineers, that’s one of the main reasons that the AS2885.info wiki was created.
We’re here to help you learn, and we look forward to having users of our Standard ask questions.
This is a concept that might be hard to agree with. Especially since engineers are generally tasked with preventing failure.
What we’re trying to address here is the idea that engineers should consider failure is ‘normal’, so that then we do everything we can to prevent it.
The email sent by APGA on Monday 16 May included dates for the bridge failures which weren’t quite correct. (“the Quebec Bridge in 1915 and the West Gate Bridge the late 1960s“).
Mea culpa, the ad copy I sent was an incoherent hybridised version of the dates … which was just confusing, for those paying attention.
Here’s the real story:
The Quebec Bridge actually failed twice during construction, first in 1907… and then again in 1916 when they were trying to rebuild it!
The West Gate Bridge was of the innovative box girder design, and in the time period 1969 to 1973, there were at least four failures of box girder bridges during construction around the world. The design was so innovative that the bridges were failing faster than the design engineers could improve the design!
Tune in on June 15 to learn more about why building bridges is a challenge and what lessons we can still learn today from those events. And, how the failure themes on these bridges might apply to pipeline engineering, or, just being a conscientious professional engineer in whatever work you are doing.
There was a recent query about the requirements of AS 2885.1 for venting below-ground structures such as valve pits. It turns out the Standard is incomplete, because an editorial change in 1997 inadvertently omitted a key sentence and no-one noticed until 25 years later. Subsequent revisions of the Standard had applied the “ain’t broke, don’t fix it” principle and failed to notice the broken bit.
On the one hand the fact that no-one noticed could be interpreted as meaning that the relevant clause is in fact not very relevant at all. On the other hand, just because a requirement is not referred to very often doesn’t mean the Standard should ignore it. If and when you are designing a large below-ground pipeline structure the sealing or ventilation of it could be critically important to safety. In any case, others have possibly noticed the anomaly but had no easy way of raising the issue to get it fixed. AS2885.info provides an avenue for any user of the Standard to raise issues such as this.
So what was the problem? Clause 6.5.3 of AS 2885.1-2018 specifies that below-ground structures of less than 6 m3 volume may be sealed or vented, but is silent on larger structures. It turns out that AS 2885-1987 (note the year!) included a sentence that “Any other structure shall be ventilated.” (i.e. must not be sealed). However that sentence was lost from all subsequent revisions. More detail here.
The take-home message is that no matter how hard committees try to get AS 2885 exactly right there are things that slip through, but if you find anything that you think is incomplete, wrong, ambiguous, etc then send an email to email@example.com. And if you have to design a big pit, make sure it is ventilated in accordance with Part 1 Clause 6.5.2(d).