Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/220283952
CITATIONS READS
16 4,312
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Armando Rosas on 14 July 2014.
Matı́as Alvarado ·
Miguel A. Rodrı́guez-Toral ·
Armando Rosas · Sergio Ayala
1 Introduction
Engineering practice in the oil and gas industry is a combination of complex and
specialized areas. Nowadays, the use of engineering software by engineers carry-
ing out information input or manipulating decision variables is a daily issue. When
M. Alvarado (B)
Centre of Research and Advanced Studies (CINVESTAV-IPN), Av. Instituto Politécnico
Nacional, 2508 Col. San Pedro Zacatenco, 07360 Mexico City, Mexico
E-mail: matias@cs.cinvestav.mx
M. A. Rodrı́guez-Toral · A. Rosas · S. Ayala
Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo, Mexico City, Mexico
256 M. Alvarado et al.
Opportunities were identified for KBS application in pipe stress analysis (PSA)
which is a part of the design process of pipe networks. PSA is used to identify
whether a pipe arrangement will cope with weight, thermal, and pressure stress at
acceptable levels under engineering design standards for safe operation. An itera-
tive process of design and analysis cycle is done on the existing or to-be designed
pipe networks. The KBS can support engineers during the steps of process pipe
design by suggesting pipe design rules or possible solutions, such that design con-
ditions for safe and reliable operation will be accomplished in an effective manner.
The more the KBS guides the verification and approval of design proposals, the
more the pipe stress analysis expert’s time is saved. In addition, KBS can support
PSA experts in routine or preliminary tests of pipe network’s design reliability.
The PSA concerned in this paper, the artefact to be analyzed, is the design of
process plant pipe networks in the upstream or downstream petroleum industry.
According to our PSA experience, decision-making bears on
The PSA engineers’ decisions are founded on the assessment and interpreta-
tion of design information of the piping system. Such information is provided from
the engineering workgroups at previous steps of the pipe system design. Whenever
a formal PSA of the pipe design indicates an overstressed point, decision-making
over possible solutions imply modifications of the pipe pathway, supports distri-
bution or both. If none of these modifications solve the pipe overstress, a redesign
coming from the steps of basic engineering would be necessary. The KBS has a
bidirectional communication with the PSA software simulator. Through the rest
of the paper, the overall strategy followed during the development of the KBS for
PSA and the advantages in its application are presented. Beyond saving PSA engi-
neering man-hours, KBS increases productivity and becomes useful in the process
of training new technical experts. As an antecedent of our aims, we mention that
KBS technology has successfully provided intelligent support to humans during
the process of database analysis and design [36]. However, skepticism remained
on the capacity to simulate the diagnostic competence of human designers. Ex-
pert human designers employ the so-called knowledge of the real world in car-
rying their design activities. Last advances in AI on knowledge management and
knowledge representation techniques in modern KBS apply on implementing such
capacity. Herein this advance is advantaged by linking the capabilities of highly
experienced people on pipe stress analysis with those from AI. This has method-
ological advantages including project development management, human expert
use, and acceptance (most likely, since they are contributors too), and practical as
well as realistic user requirements for the KBS. In the next section, a summary
of the state-of-the-art KBS in engineering for the process industry as well as the
presentation of the AI techniques for decision-making is presented. Throughout
the rest of the sections, our pipe stress analysis decision-making perspective is
introduced.
258 M. Alvarado et al.
2 Engineering decision-making
substitution and the interrelationships between the problem definition and its so-
lution; (b) constraint satisfaction, to globally check the design requirements to
assess case adaptability. The system was implemented and tested in the domain of
rolling bearings.
The application of KBS to the task of failure analysis and design against fail-
ure is reviewed in [20]; they emphasized on the reasoning methodologies and the
knowledge domains. Case-based reasoning techniques were considered to be the
most suitable for generic failure analysis due to the complexity of knowledge re-
quired. They concluded that future trends in diagnostic expert systems will be
based on the holistic hybrid rule-case-based reasoning approach combined with a
number of stand-alone engineering failure-analysis calculating software tools and
a multimedia-type KBS for different failure modes.
2.2.2 Architecture
competitive edge of engineering is allowed so that the aim of any design engineer-
ing organization may produce projects with high quality and make them available
in less time.
PSA is a complex engineering discipline which covers the design, analysis, and
identification of piping problems by ensuring that weight, thermal, and pressure
stresses are at acceptable levels specified in engineering design standards. PSA
includes the calculation of piping code stresses, loads, and deflections under static
and dynamic loading conditions. The stress analysis of pipe networks is normally
done using the finite element method (FEM) [35].
The reasons for the analysis of Pipe stress on a piping system is essential
to ensure that the piping is well supported and does not fall or deflect under its
own weight; the deflections are well controlled when thermal and other loads are
applied; the loads and moments imposed on machinery and vessels by the ther-
mal growth of the attached piping are not excessive; and that the stresses in the
pipework in cold and hot conditions are under the range allowed. PSA addresses
problems such as thermal analysis (analysis for free and restrained thermal growth
conditions); deadweight analysis (analysis at ambient temperature with a system
of hangers at specific locations to support the weight of the system, for allow-
able stress and reactions at equipment connections); seismic analysis (static or
dynamic); wind load analysis (static stress analysis); transient analysis (for vari-
ous transient loading conditions such as, turbine trip, pipe whip, safety relief valve
trip, etc.). Static analysis in PSA includes the use of hangers, wind load sets, nozzle
flexibilities and stresses, equipment load check (under engineering standards, for
example, for steam turbines (NEMA SM23), centrifugal compressors (API 617),
air-cooled exchangers (API 661), etc.), flange leakage and stresses, fatigue analy-
Decision-making on pipe stress analysis enabled by knowledge-based systems 263
sis and cumulative usage (to calculate the remaining life based on material fatigue
curve data and an assigned number of cycles), offshore piping analysis (for ana-
lyzing individual pipe elements experiencing loading due to hydrodynamic effects
of ocean waves and ocean currents).
Dynamic analysis in PSA considers dynamic data such as lumped masses, im-
posed vibration, snubbers, and spectrum definitions. Dynamic analysis includes
aspects such as mode shape and natural frequency calculations (for reviewing the
systems natural modes of vibration), harmonic forces and displacements (to eval-
uate the vibration response of a damped system to a range of harmonic forces or
displacements to simulate mechanical and acoustic line vibrations), shock spec-
trum analysis and independent support motion (including anchor movements),
force spectrum analysis (for the analysis of general impact loads such as water
and steam hammer, slug flow and relief valve discharge), modal time history anal-
ysis, relief valve load synthesis (to calculate the dynamic thrust load and transient
pressures from relief valves in open discharge systems).
Engineers should also combine different static/dynamic loads in order to prop-
erly address the occasional load requirements of the piping codes.
not assist the designer in taking credit for flexibility that may exist in a large di-
ameter intersection. The author reports that since the stress intensification factors
(SIFs) are relatively high for large-diameter piping, many stub-in branch connec-
tions will require a pad to meet the code displacement stress limits.
Pipe stress analysis can be done using analysis software such as AutoPIPE or
CAESAR II. The model is constructed from piping general arrangement, piping
isometric drawings, and piping and valve specifications. Once the system is mod-
eled and the boundary conditions are set, comprehensive stress analysis calcula-
tions are done by the engineering software, and modifications to the model can be
made to ensure compliance with the design requirements.
Many engineering and energy organizations, around the world engaged in ser-
vices on design and analysis of process pipe networks use the CAESAR II engi-
neering software, first introduced in 1984 by a company named COADE; today,
it is perhaps the most used in the engineering area [14]. CAESAR II allows the
analysis of piping systems subject to weight, pressure, thermal, seismic, and other
static and dynamic loads. The code compliance report generated by CAESAR II
defines the overstressed points in the system.
CAESAR II begins a static analysis by recommending load cases necessary
to comply with piping code stress requirements. As a comprehensive program for
pipe stress analysis, it includes a full range of the latest international piping codes.
It provides static and dynamic analysis of pipe and piping systems, and evaluates
fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP); buried piping; wind, wave, and earthquake loading;
expansion joints, valves, flanges, and vessel nozzles; pipe components; and nozzle
flexibilities. The program automatically models structural steel and buried pipe,
and provides spectrum, time history analysis, and automatic spring sizing. CAE-
SAR II includes component databases and an extensive material database with
allowable stress data. It also includes a bidirectional link to COADE’s CADWorx
Plant drafting package.
The program’s interactive capabilities permit easy evaluation of input and out-
put, a valuable match for the iterative ‘design and analysis’ cycle, and has an easy-
to-use menu-driven interface. Context-sensitivity helps provide instant technical
assistance. Data values depicted in the help screens are automatically presented in
the current set of units to make input easier.
The identification of piping design rules and how these rules can be incorporated
into an expert system using a common subset of LISP was reported for an expert
system that was then interfaced with a computer-aided design package [21]. Also,
applications in engineering companies like Brown and Root, Inc., U.S.A., reported
the opportunity for AI techniques in diagnosing high-energy piping problems [41],
arguing the need of an expert system for efficiently using their company’s experi-
ence on many high-energy piping systems in fossil power plants, technical papers,
procedures, reports and reviews with a large database, including the accumulated
experience of senior engineering specialists. The challenge was how to best use
this expanding base of valuable knowledge and experience. They saw an oppor-
tunity for piping data and expertise to be used more efficiently, comprehensively,
and accurately with an expert system.
An expert system environment designed to integrate multiple sources of
knowledge required to analyze the internal structure of flexible pipes named
FRAES is reported in [9]. There, numerical algorithms, databases, and expert
knowledge are explored by the inference mechanism of the system to assist the
technical personnel of petroleum companies in the analysis, design, and diagnosis
of flexible pipes; these are used as flowlines or risers in offshore applications.
Diab and Morand (2005) proved that a safety factor principle is enough to an-
alyze safety reserves in buried pipes because of the variation of the phenomena
acting on the behavior of the pipe sewers. Their decision support system is used to
boost the efficient use of existing resources as it integrates all of the information
involved in a decision-making process. They report a semiprobabilistic approach
to diagnose urban sewers, which is divided into two parts: one based on a sim-
plified probabilistic method (concerns only the mechanical behavior of the pipe);
the other part is based on the established rules to integrate the impact of the pipe
behavior on its environment. They insist that their method will permit to establish
a rational diagnosis of urban sewers.
Actual decisions that address the human expert and the expert systems for
pipe networks and pipelines design include a range of complex and specialized
knowledge like the one outlined in the next section, thus showing a necessity for
the development of a KBS as proposed here.
As in many engineering disciplines today, the expert uses computer software for
engineering calculations, then he or she may need to decide on the modifications
required to apply to the computer model until a satisfactory solution comes up.
Technical expert in PSA should know when and how to use specific restraints (or
support types) for piping systems and these include the following.
Restraints: A device that prevents, resists, or limits the free thermal movement
of the pipe. Restraints can be either directional, rotational, or a combination of
both.
266 M. Alvarado et al.
Anchors: A restraint that provides substantial rigid strength, ideally allowing nei-
ther movements nor bending moments. There are also anchors with displace-
ments.
Expansion loops: A purpose designed device that absorbs thermal growth; usu-
ally used in combination with restraints and cold pulls.
Cold pull or cold spring: It is used to pre-load the piping system in cold condition
in the opposite direction of the expansion, so that the effects of expansion
are reduced. Cold pull is usually 50% of the expansion of the pipe run under
consideration. Cold pull has no effect on the code stress but can be used to
reduce the nozzle loads on machinery or vessels.
Spring hangers: They are used to support a piping system that is subjected to
vertical thermal movements. Variable effort spring hangers are usually incor-
porated for vertical thermal movements up to approximately 50 mm. The vari-
ation between the preset and operating loads should not be more than 25% of
the operating load. Constant effort spring hangers are usually incorporated for
vertical thermal movements in exceeding 50 mm.
Solid vertical support: It is used in places where vertical thermal movement does
not create undesirable effects or where vertical movement is intentionally pre-
vented or directed.
Human expert should also know aspects of solid supports in the form of rods
or pipe shoes, the importance of free horizontal movement of the pipe as not being
impeded unless the horizontal restraint is desired, harmonic forces and displace-
ments influencing the vibration response of a damped system, etc.
The expert should be able to transfer his design to/from hydraulic analysis
department (using commercial software too, e.g., Stoners LIQT and Sunrise Sys-
tems PIPENET or even by hand, expressing the piping isometric into his own
engineering software, e.g., CAESAR II. He or she should know specific topics
from engineering codes, as well as effects like single or double acting transla-
tional, single or double acting rotational, translational with bilinear stiffness, use
of snubbers (shock absorbers), guides and limit stops, bottomed-out springs, tie
rod assemblies, gaps and friction, connecting nodes for nodal interdependence
and large rotation rod supports.
During the piping design stage, a choice of (algebraic) combination of dis-
placements, forces, and stresses results in the modification of load cases. Some
choices are indicated as obliged, but there are others that admit alternative solu-
tions, and the criteria to select them is a key judgment by senior engineers. On the
other hand, to pipe the support’s distribution should be decided on the position of
each support, the type of support, the distribution along the process plant, etc.
PSA engineers assess and interpret the information on the design of the pip-
ing system delivered from the basic engineering (process and design) technicians.
PSA engineers do decide whether according to the given specifications, the pipe
pathway is reliable or not, as well as if the distribution of pipe supports is well
suited, then will that pipe operate safe. Identification of pipe critical lines indi-
cates the part of the pipe to put special attention considering the top-down ranking
of risk and danger of the pipelines. Whenever PSA of the proposed design derives
in pipe overstress, the decision-making compels to modify pipe pathway or sup-
ports distribution or both, as the solution that the PSA engineers can introduce to
achieve safe operation.
Technical data about the piping system to make decisions is broadly contained
in the PSA simulator jointly with other engineering software tools. PSA sim-
ulator uses the design information of the piping system to test if it suits stress
enough below the allowed limits. If design data input to simulator fulfils the spec-
ified restraints and there are no overstressed points, then the simulators output is
OK. Otherwise, reasons for a negative answer are not shown. However, no rec-
ommendation is indicated about possible changes to introduce in the proposed
pipe design. Actually, this is the current difficulty that PSA engineers deal with.
Currently, assessment and interpretation about what to do is being obtained from
human experts’ know-how. The more the engineer’s experience, the more quickly
the required design is found out: junior engineers can spend a lot of man-hours
to get the right solution, usually by a trial–error cycle or by asking senior PSA
engineers for some guidance.
Alternatively, we experienced that large part of the routine and/or fine
decision-making can reside in the KBS. When the PSA software simulator finds
overstressed points in the piping system, the human expert feeds the simulator
with alternative data. The experts’ recommendations, besides the processed infor-
mation to find them, can be coded inside the KBS for PSA. Like the human ex-
perts, KBS will support decision-making; thus, it should deal with the assessment
and interpretation of information on the design of the piping system to address
an enough-flexible pathway as well as a proper distribution of supports as human
engineers deal with. As a human supporter, KBS should guide, to some extent, the
eventual changes that could be introduced in the pipe design.
KBS takes as input data the simulator output, and fashions possible changes
to avoid overstress; then, this new data of design is the next input to simulator in
turns. This way, an interacting cycle—simulator/KBS/simulator—receives after
some iteration, a well-suited pipe design. Symmetrically, the initial data that feeds
the simulator can be previously assessed by a KBS so that a KBS/simulator/KBS
cycle works as well. Then, KBS offers a possible design of the solution as the
input for the simulator, or that the simulator output is the input to be assessed and
weighted for the KBS.
268 M. Alvarado et al.
Based on the concepts of [16], people involved in the development of KBS for pipe
stress analysis are (a) senior experts with engineering experience, (b) knowledge
engineers, and (c) the end users. In all the cases, more than one person would
participate, since the complexity and magnitude of each PSA matter is wide and
complex enough (see Fig. 2). The knowledge acquisition tool (KAT) is for KB
construction, and the KAT shell serves the purpose of constructed knowledge base
[46].
Backend of the KAT is based on fuzzy sets and logic that provides a powerful
support to KBS inference engine. Because of fuzzy sets, the parameters used to
model or simulate an engineering situation can have an ad hoc range of values.
Fuzzy logic furnishes the parameter’s combination in such a way that a global
assessment of the engineering problem is available. There, a sample of rules that
human expert uses for decision-making in designing pipe networks is presented.
They are being implemented in the knowledge base and grouped in the steps men-
tioned in this section.
In the very first step are identified the parts of the pipe that, due to the flow con-
ditions, material, and size of the pipe as well as the type of connected devices, is
especially dangerous and needs extra care. Flow conditions refer to temperature,
pressure, type, toxicity, density, regime, among others. Pipe size involves diam-
Decision-making on pipe stress analysis enabled by knowledge-based systems 269
Rule 1. On the selection of critical line subject to PSA because high flow pressure and
temperature.
IF pressure is >15 kg/cm2 man. OR operating temperature is > 150 ◦ C.OR. below −10 ◦ C
.THEN. critical line . AND. do PSA
Rule 2. On the selection of critical line subject to PSA due to big diameter size.
IF pipe line diameter >20 in .THEN. critical line .AND. do PSA
Rule 3. On the selection of critical line subject to PSA based on pipe material of construction.
IF pipe material of construction is different from carbon steel .THEN. critical line .AND. do
PSA
eter and length. Connected equipments to the pipe are furnaces, bombs, thermal
changers, turbines, and compresors, among others. Some example rules for this
step decisions are presented in Table 1.
The second step is the creation of a top-down scoring of lines’ criticalness level
due to the characteristics of the flow each line transports as well as the pipe di-
ameter or the equipment that is being connected. Most combinations making pipe
critical lines involve high flow temperature, medium or big pipe diameter as well
as more fine equipment being connected. The more the level of each flow tem-
perature, pipe diameter size or equipment fineness, the more the level of line crit-
icalness. By the process of Cartesian coordinates, Fig. 3 illustrates that point A
corresponds to a more critical line than the one represented by point B because
A contains flow with a higher temperature, has a bigger diameter, and connects
more fine equipment than does B. Also with equal temperature, point D sets a
more critical line than does E because D’s diameter is bigger.
As a recommended practice, the most critical lines must be first OK designed
and then constructed. This way, the pipe pathway space needed to locate critical
lines or the facilities construction required to keep them together with all compul-
sory conditions can be allowed without restrictions. As much as most critical lines
are designed or constructed, the lines of next minor level of criticalness should be
designed; the design of less critical lines can be adapted to the left conditions after
the design and construction of the most critical ones. Experiences doing the de-
sign and some times the construction—regardless of this order—advice that hard
difficulties in constructing extreme critical lines may occur.
Balance and equilibrium on pipe’s weight and stress also concerns the supports
pipes keep. Right distribution of supports as well as the adequate support at the
required place contribute to a safer pipe operation. Actions that PSA engineers can
take with regard to pipe supports in order to achieve safe operation as follows:
• add supports,
• change supports separation or distribution,
• change the type of support.
By adding supports or changing the separation between them, a well-suited weight
distribution can be obtained. On the other hand, when the pipe height is a variable,
a below-fix-pipe support is not suggested but a pipe above the flexible one is.
Pipe section’s height varies due to pipe expansion or distension from variable
temperature from the inside flow or environment. This is a typical situation of
weather conditions, like the ones of desert, where severe changes occur from day
Decision-making on pipe stress analysis enabled by knowledge-based systems 271
to night; variation in temperature is high during a 24-h cycle such that special
supports adaptable to different conditions are needed.
Example. One of the first process operations in a petroleum refinery is per-
formed in an atmospheric distillation column, whose separated vapour goes to a
condenser through a piping system as the one shown in Fig. 4. The piping sys-
tem consists of one feed and one discharge connection pipe segments, one rigid Y
support, three shoe supports, and four long-radius elbows. The upper end is con-
nected to the top of the distillation column while the piping system’s lower end is
connected to the overhead condenser. The resultant pipe stress analysis done with
CAESAR II determined that forces in the piping system exceed the limit specified
in the ASME B31.3 code for process piping. The pipe system does not have suffi-
cient flexibility to accommodate the elongation of the atmospheric tower resulting
from the temperature variations.
The engineering expert solution incorporates a variable spring hanger to per-
mit upward movement caused by the elongation of the tower; then, CAESAR II
resulted in no warning or error messages for exceeding code limits. An alternative
solution was the introduction of an expansion joint, it was an expensive solution—
therefore not practiced—due to the pipe diameter. Nor was an expansion loop in-
troduced, because it would be necessary as an additional support to a great height,
which is expensive too.
Whenever none of the PSA proposals solves the pipe overstress, a redesign must
be practiced by the process and/or design engineers. It passes on major modifica-
tions of the pipe pathway concerning such steps of the pipe deployment.
how, harmonize the holistic solutions that benefits decision-making for our pur-
poses. As mentioned in Sect. 4.1, the technical information on device under
consideration is modeled in the software engineering PSA simulator. On the
other hand, the expert engineers’ information is partially included in the KBS
as long as it captures the human expert’s know-how. Rules to identify criti-
cal lines as well as for the top-down scoring fashion or the ones about the
pipe pathway modifications and support distribution codify the PSA engineers’
know-how.
This way automation of the interaction between the parts of the proposed ar-
chitecture is arranged. The managed knowledge about pipe stress analysis is cou-
pled with the pipe network being designed. The KBS becomes a smart mediator
between the simulators modeling and the PSA engineer experiences adjusting the
model (see Fig. 5). KBS can suggest alternatives in order to achieve an adequate
piping system design under the advanced stress analysis.
4.5 Advantages
In addition to human expert’s time being saved and used for finer deci-
sions, the advantage of KBS application is to be able to code specialized
know-how such that the knowledge base turns out to be a significant exper-
tise from senior experts. There are significant advantages in its application
in terms of saving engineering man-hours, increasing productivity, and being
useful in training new technical experts. Furthermore, the medium extent of
KBS deployment should deal with high-level decision-making of keen expert’s
know-how.
This KBS for pipe stress analysis together with similar tools for strategic areas
is a key aspect in augmenting productivity, preserving, and incrementing orga-
nization technical knowledge and being strategic in promoting sustainability of
engineering services organizations.
Decision-making on pipe stress analysis enabled by knowledge-based systems 273
6 Conclusions
Acknowledgements This work was done under the collaboration of Project Engineering Di-
rection and PIMAyC (Applied Mathematical and Computing Research Program), both from the
IMP. We would like to express our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and
suggestions. M. Alvarado and M. A. Rodrguez-Toral would like to thank the Mexican National
Researchers System for supporting their research activities.
Decision-making on pipe stress analysis enabled by knowledge-based systems 275
References
1. Abou-Ali MG, Beltagui SA (1995) Expert system for the integrated design of heat exchang-
ers. Proc Inst Mech Eng, E: J Process Mech Eng 209(E1):27–39
2. Alvarado M, Bañares-Alcántara R, Trujillo F (2005) Improving the organizational memory
by recording workflow, decision-making and rationale. J Pet Sci Eng 47(1/2):71–88
3. Ashraf O, Chin M, Hollings J et al (1985) Interactive pipe stress analysis on microcomput-
ers. Am Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP 98-5:121–124
4. Barton P, Pantelides C (1994) Modeling of combined discrete/continous process. AIChE J
40:966–979
5. Bañares-Alcántara R (1995) Design support systems for process engineering I: Require-
ments and proposes solutions for a design process representation. Comput Chem Eng
19(3):267–277
6. Bañares-Alcántara R, King J (1997) Design support systems for process engineering. III:
Design rationale as a requirement for effective support. Comput Chem Eng 21(3):263-276
7. Bayer B, Marquardt W (2004) Towards integrated information models for data and docu-
ments. Comput Chem Eng 28(8):1249–1266
8. Blake B, Gomaa H (2004) Agent-oriented compositional approach to service-based cross-
organizational workflow. Decis Support Syst 40(1):31–50
9. Bogarin Jose AG, Ebecken Nelson FF (1996) Integration of knowledge sources for flexible
pipe evaluation and design. Expert Syst Appl 10(1):29–36
10. Assaf-Arkin I (2002) Business process modeling language available at: http://xml.
coverpages.org/BPML-2002.pdf
11. Sanjiva W, Curbera F (2006) Business process with BPEL4WS: concepts in business pro-
cesses, available at: www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-bpelcol1/
12. Brice A, Johns W, Castell C, Banares-Alcantara R, Leboulleoux P, Sellin L (1998) Improv-
ing process design by improving the design process. In: AIChE annual meeting, Miami, FL,
pp 15-20
13. Chatterjee M, Unemori A, Kakaria A, Jain D (1992) Integrated pipe stress analysis/support
pattern selection/support design CAE system. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ASME interna-
tional computers in engineering conference and exposition, vol 2, pp 233–240, San Fran-
cisco, CA
14. COADE (2001) CAESAR II R
pipe stress analysis software. Product Catalog
15. Diab YG, Morand D (2003) Risks analysis for prioritizing urban sewer rehabilitation: a
decision support system. New Pipeline Technol Secur Saf 1:610–620
16. Durkin J (1996) Expert systems design and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ
17. Ebecken NFF, Geymayr JAB, Gottgtroy MPB (1992) Expert systems development for eval-
uating the physical integrity of process equipment in the petroleum industry. In: Proceedings
of the 17th international conference on applications of artificial intelligence in engineering
(AIENG’92), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp 335–344
18. Gusikhin O, Rychtyckyj N, Filev D (2006) Intelligent systems in the automotive industry:
applications and trends. Knowl Inf Syst, 12(2)
19. FIPA iterated contract net interaction protocol specification, Foundation for Intelligent
Physical Agents, available at: http://www.fipa.org
20. Graham-Jones PJ, Mellor BG (1995) Expert and knowledge-based systems in failure anal-
ysis. Eng Fail Anal 2(2):137–149
21. Jellesed RH (1989) Developing an expert system to link the piping designer to computer-
aided design. Am Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP 177:49–54 Presented
at the quality use of the computer: computational mechanics, artificial intelligence, robotics,
and acoustic sending, Honolulu, HI
22. Jennings NR (2000) On agent-based software engineering. Artif Intell 117:277–296
23. Kang S-S, Myung S, Han S-H (1999) Design expert system for auto-routing of ship pipes.
J Ship Prod 15(1):1–9
24. Kim Y-J, Suh M-W, Seok C-S et al (1996) Development of expert system for nuclear piping
integrity. Am Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP 323(1):207–215
25. Kotis K, Bouros GA (2006) Human-centered ontology engineering: the HCOME method-
ology. Knowl Inf Syst 10(1):109–131
276 M. Alvarado et al.
26. Lindley DW, Yow JR, Knott R (1989) Using integrated pipe stress/support analysis to es-
tablish extra safety margin. Am Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) 182:97–102
27. Marra J (1995) Use of knowledge-based engineering in compressor rotor design. In: Amer-
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers (Paper), paper no: 95-GT-384, 11 pp Proceedings of
the international gas turbine and aeroengine congress and exposition, Houston, TX
28. McLean A, Young RM, Moran T (1991) Questions, options and criteria: Elements of the
design space analysis. Hum Comput Interact 6:201–250
29. Mezher T, Abdul-Malak MA, Ghosn I, Ajam M (2005) Knowledge management in me-
chanical and industrial engineering consulting: a case study. J Manag Eng 21(3):138–147
30. Mohiuddin AKM, Kant K, Sangal R (1996) ESTOWER: an expert system for the thermal
design of wet cooling towers. Eng Appl Artif Intell 9(2):185–194
31. Morrill JP, Wright D (1989) Method for reasoning by analogy in failure analysis. J Vib
Acoustics Stress Reliability Des 111(3):306–310
32. Morbach A, Yang AD, Marquardt W (2007) OntoCAPE—a large-scale ontology for chem-
ical process engineering. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(2):147–161
33. Chen M-Y, Chen A-P (2006) Knowledge management performance evaluation: a decade
review from 1995 to 2004. J Inf Sci 32(1):17–38
34. Nemati H, Steiger D, Iyer L, Hershel R (2002) Knowledge warehouse: an architectural in-
tegration of knowledge management, decision support, artificial intelligence and data ware-
housing. Decis Support Syst 33:143–161
35. Ohtaki S (1995) Thermal stress analysis of pipe bends by the finite element method. Am
Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP 305:417–423
36. O’Keefe RM, Preece AD (1996) The development, validation and implementation of
knowledge-based systems. Eur J Oper Res 92(3):458–473
37. Peng LC (1978) Stress analysis methods for underground pipelines. Pipe Line Ind 47(5):65–
74
38. Peng LC (1979) Toward more consistent pipe stress analysis. Hydrocarbon Process
58(5):207–211
39. Prassl WF, Peden JM, Wong KW (2005) A process-knowledge management approach for
assessment and mitigation of drilling risks. J Pet Sci Eng 49:142–161
40. Qin X, Regli WC (2003) A study in applying case-based reasoning to engineering design:
mechanical bearing design. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf: AIEDAM 17(3):235–252
41. Robleto RA, Tseng MS (1989) Diagnosing high-energy piping problems with an expert
system. Am Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP. 169:137–142
42. Robleto RA (2002) Modeling underground pipe with pipe stress analysis program. Am Soc
Mech Eng Pressure Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP 440:131–136.
43. Robleto RA (2004) Reduction in stresses shown in piping programs in large diameter pipe
branch connections by applying flexibilities computed by shell finite element analysis. Am
Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP 447:55–59
44. Sapuan SM (2001) A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engi-
neering design. Am Soc Mech Eng Press Vessels Piping Div (Publ) PVP 22(8):687–695
45. Sawa T, Ogata N, Nishida T (2002) Stress analysis and determination of bolt preload in pipe
flange connections with gaskets under internal pressure. J Press Vessel Technol 124(4):385–
396
46. Sheremetov L, Batyrshin I, Martinez J, Rodriguez H, Filatov D (2005) Fuzzy expert system
for solving lost circulation problem. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international confer-
ence on hybrid intelligent systems, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
47. Subrahmanian E, Konda SL, Levy SN, Reich Y, Westerberg AW, Monarch I (1993) Equa-
tions aren’t enough: informal modelling in design, AIEDAM 7(4):257–274
Decision-making on pipe stress analysis enabled by knowledge-based systems 277
Author Biographies