Limit State Design Based on Experimental Methods for High Pressure Subsea Pipeline Design

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Alexander
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Limit State ◽  
Experimental Methods ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Thick Wall ◽  
Pipeline System ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Limit State Design ◽  
Pipeline Design ◽  
Design Pressure

The design of offshore subsea pipelines is facing new challenges as the pipeline industry is moving into environments requiring high pressure design. Conventional pipeline design codes such as ASME B31.4 and B31.8 establish pressure limits based on percentage of the pipe material’s minimum specified yield strength. While this has traditionally worked for relatively thin-walled pipe at moderate pressures, there are concerns that full utilization of the material’s capacity is not being realized when designing for high pressure conditions. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the ability to achieve high quality manufacturing and consistently fabricate welds in thick-wall pipes. This paper presents details on a testing program that incorporated full-scale burst testing to qualify the design pressure for an 18-inch × 0.75-inch, Grade X65 subsea gas pipeline using the methodology of API RP 1111. A lower bound burst pressure was established based on the recorded burst pressures to which a design margin of 0.72 was applied to determine a design pressure. Had the pipeline been conventionally-designed using ASME B31.8, the design pressure would have been 3,900 psi. However, using the experimentally-based design option in API RP 1111 the resulting design pressure was 4,448 psi. This results in a net increase in the design pressure of 14 percent. When one considers either the potential cost savings in material requirements at construction or the additional throughput associated with higher design pressures for a given pipeline system, it is not difficult to demonstrate the economic benefits derived in performing a more rigorous material qualification and limit state design process based on experimental methods as presented in API RP 1111.

Limit State Design Based on Experimental Methods for High Pressure, High Temperature Riser and Pipeline Design

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Shilling ◽  
Chris Alexander ◽  
Ron Livesay
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
High Temperature ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Limit State ◽  
Design Procedure ◽  
Thick Wall ◽  
Pipe Material ◽  
Test Program ◽  
Riser Pipe ◽  
High Pressure High Temperature

A full-scale test program was conducted for BP America, Inc. to evaluate the performance of pipe material selected for use in high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) riser applications. Full length ultrasonic (FLUT) wall mapping was then used to select samples, and burst tests were performed at pressures exceeding 40,000 psi. The tests’ results clearly demonstrated the accuracy of the capped end burst pressures predicted by API RP 1111 as demonstrated by the low standard deviation of experimental burst pressures. The test program validated the strain-based design methodology embodied in API RP 1111, especially the empirically-based design methodology presented in Appendix B of API RP 1111. This paper presents details on the completed program and how the industry can use the insights gained in completing this study to establish design pressures that more fully utilize material strengths for thick-wall riser pipe materials while maintaining conservative factors of safety. A performance and reliability-based design procedure based on FLUT wall mapping has been proposed and verified in this study; the use of this design procedure can improve true reliability by ensuring a better quality riser product.

A Historical Review of Pre-Commissioning Hydrotest Failures

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Cosham ◽  
Robert J. Eiber ◽  
Robert Owen ◽  
Jan Spiekhout
Keyword(s):  
Historical Data ◽  
Safety Margin ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Pipeline System ◽  
Engineering Structures ◽  
Line Pipe ◽  
The North ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Pipeline Design ◽  
Design Pressure

The concept of proof testing engineering structures has its origins in antiquity. The pre-commissioning hydrostatic test (also known as the pre-service pressure test) has been an important part of the process of commissioning a newly constructed pipeline for over 50 years, since its beginnings in the 1950s in the USA. The purpose of the hydrotest is several-fold: to prove the leak tightness of the pipeline system at a pressure above the design pressure, as a strength (proof) test to identify (fail) defects and sub-standard pipe, and to prove a safety margin above the pipeline design pressure. Historical data, from PARLOC (Pipeline and Riser Loss of Containment), the OPS (Office of Pipeline Safety) 30 day Incident Reports, and the published literature on the number and causes of pre-commissioning hydrotest failures has been reviewed. The historical data covers onshore gas transmission pipelines in the USA and the UK, and gas and liquid pipelines in the North Sea. The data covers the period from 1952 to 2005, although there are significant gaps in the data (e.g. the OPS data for the USA does not report test failures after 1984). In this paper, the historical data is summarised over this period, by year, in terms of the number of failures per km, and trends in the frequency and type of failures are identified. Comparison of USA and UK experience, or onshore and offshore experience, is contentious because of the influences of different design codes, and local custom and practice. The USA and UK pipeline design code requirements for the hydrotest are summarised in the paper, and it is shown that some of the trends in the failure data may be explained by the differences between the codes. Failures during the hydrotest are rare, but occasionally they do occur. The general consensus is that failures during the precommissioning hydrostatic test are now less common, and that failures due to defective line pipe (rather than due to leaking fittings) are rare. The historical data supports this consensus, but it also highlights that it is largely based on anecdotal evidence rather than data and analysis, because information on test failures is not now routinely gathered and published. The results of the historical review demonstrate that understanding the causes and reasons for hydrotest failures is important for learning from past mistakes, and also for identifying those cases where it may be possible to dispense with a pre-commissioning hydrotest. Reliable historical data on hydrotest failures is necessary to quantify trends over time, and to understand the causes of failures. The pipeline industry as a whole is not coherently recording this data. It should be.

Limit State Philosophy in Pipeline Design

1987 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. P. Ellinas ◽  
P. W. J. Raven ◽  
A. C. Walker ◽  
P. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Structural Analysis ◽  
Safety Factor ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Limit State ◽  
Structural Behavior ◽  
Major Conclusion ◽  
Safety Factors ◽  
Suitable Framework ◽  
General Aspects ◽  
Pipeline Design

This paper considers the application of the limit state philosophy of structural analysis to pipeline design. General aspects of the philosophy are discussed and the approach to the evaluation of safety factors is reviewed. The paper further considers the various limit and serviceability states which would be relevant to a pipeline and reviews the various factors which may require consideration, before a code embodying the limit state philosophy could be formulated. A review of the state of current knowledge on various aspects of geometry and material characteristics, loading and structural behavior is presented. It is intended that such a review can be used as the basis for a larger study to provide guidance and data for the evaluation of rational levels of safety factor. The major conclusion reached by the authors is that a limit state philosophy would be valuable in providing a suitable framework, which may highlight the significant aspects of pipeline design and which can most easily accommodate new requirements and results obtained from research.

Evaluation of the Effect of Yield to Tensile (Y/T) Ratio on the Structural Integrity of Offshore Pipeline by Limit State Design Approach

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianluca Mannucci ◽  
Giuliano Malatesta ◽  
Giuseppe Demofonti ◽  
Marco Tivelli ◽  
Hector Quintanilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Structural Reliability ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Structural Integrity ◽  
Limit State ◽  
Minor Effect ◽  
Offshore Pipelines ◽  
Limit State Design ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Probabilistic Failure Analysis ◽  
Failure Probabilities

Nowadays specifications require strict Yield to Tensile ratio limitation, nevertheless a fully accepted engineering assessment of its influence on pipeline integrity is still lacking. Probabilistic analysis based on structural reliability approach (Limit State Design, LSD) aimed at quantifying the yield to tensile strength ratio (Y/T) influence on failure probabilities of offshore pipelines was made. In particular, Tenaris seamless pipe data were used as input for the probabilistic failure analysis. The LSD approach has been applied to two actual deepwater design cases that have been on purpose selected, and the most relevant failure modes have been considered. Main result of the work is that the quantitative effect of the Y/T ratio on failure probabilities of a deepwater pipeline resulted not so big as expected; it has a minor effect, especially when Y only governs failure modes.

scholarly journals Rational Modeling of Ultimate Pipe Strength Under Bending and External Pressure

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
André C. Nogueira ◽  
Glenn A. Lanan
Keyword(s):  
Deep Water ◽  
Limit State ◽  
Local Buckling ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
Pressure Effects ◽  
Combined Loading ◽  
Empirical Prediction ◽  
Limit State Design ◽  
Controlled Conditions ◽  
Offshore Pipeline

The capacity of pipelines to resist collapse or local buckling under a combination of external pressure and bending moment is a major aspect of offshore pipeline design. The importance of this loading combination increases as oil and gas projects in ultra deep-water, beyond 2,000-m water depths, are becoming reality. The industry is now accepting, and codes are explicitly incorporating, limit state design concepts such as the distinction between load controlled and displacement controlled conditions. Thus, deep-water pipeline installation and limit state design procedures are increasing the need to understand fundamental principles of offshore pipeline performance. Design codes, such as API 1111 (1999) or DNV (1996, 2000), present equations that quantify pipeline capacities under combined loading in offshore pipelines. However, these equations are based on empirical data fitting, with or without reliability considerations. Palmer (1994) pointed out that “it is surprising to discover that theoretical prediction [of tubular members under combined loading] has lagged behind empirical prediction, and that many of the formula have no real theoretical backup beyond dimensional analysis.” This paper addresses the ultimate strength of pipelines under combined bending and external pressure, especially for diameter-to-thickness ratios, D/t, less than 40, which are typically used for deep water applications. The model is original and has a rational basis. It includes considerations of ovalization, anisotropy (such as those caused by the UOE pipe fabrication process), load controlled, and displaced controlled conditions. First, plastic analysis is reviewed, then pipe local buckling under pure bending is analyzed and used to develop the strength model. Load controlled and displacement controlled conditions are a natural consequence of the formulation, as well as cross section ovalization. Secondly, external pressure effects are addressed. Model predictions compare very favorably to experimental collapse test results.

Case Studies Highlighting Rapid Repair Methods of Pressurised Pipelines Damaged by Anchors

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale Millward
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Pipeline System ◽  
Subsea Pipeline ◽  
Damage Scenarios ◽  
Fail Safe ◽  
Subsea Pipelines ◽  
Marine Vessels ◽  
Pipeline Design

Effective pipeline design and regular maintenance can assist in prolonging the lifespan of subsea pipelines, however the presence of marine vessels can significantly increase the risk of pipeline damage from anchor hazards. As noted in the Health and Safety Executive – Guideline for Pipeline Operators on Pipeline Anchor Hazards 2009. “Anchor hazards can pose a significant threat to pipeline integrity. The consequences of damage to a pipeline could include loss of life, injury, fire, explosion, loss of buoyancy around a vessel and major pollution”. This paper will describe state of the art pipeline isolation tooling that enables safe modification of pressurised subsea pipelines. Double Block and Bleed (DBB) isolation tools have been utilised to greatly reduce downtime, increase safety and maximise unplanned maintenance, providing cost-effective solutions to the end user. High integrity isolation methods, in compliance with international subsea system intervention and isolation guidelines (IMCA D 044 / IMCA D 006), that enable piggable and unpiggable pipeline systems to be isolated before any breaking of containment, will also be explained. This paper will discuss subsea pipeline damage scenarios and repair options available to ensure a safe isolation of the pipeline and contents in the event of an incident DNV GL type approved isolation technology enables the installation of a fail-safe, DBB isolation in the event of a midline defect. The paper will conclude with case studies highlighting challenging subsea pipeline repair scenarios successfully executed, without depressurising the entire pipeline system, and in some cases without shutting down or interrupting production.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document