- Email: [email protected]

Chapter 7 PIPELINE MECHANICAL DESIGN INTRODUCTION This chapter applies specifically to the design of steel pipelines f

* Views 90*
* Downloads 21*
* File size 9MB*

Chapter

7 PIPELINE MECHANICAL DESIGN

INTRODUCTION This chapter applies specifically to the design of steel pipelines for transmission of gas and liquid petroleum products. It is not intended to be applied to other types of lines, such as low pressure, plastic, or distribution lines.

CODES AND STANDARDS The design, material selection, and construction of pipeline facilities are governed by codes and standards that prescribe minimum requirements. The purpose of the codes and standards are to ensure that the completed structure will be safe to operate under the conditions to be used. Some examples of the codes and standards that are commonly used during the design and construction of pipelines have been cited in Chapter 1, Table 1-1. Besides these, other regional, national, or international standards may be used in specific situations, while local regulations may also apply. Individual companies may elect to develop in-house standards or specifications, which are more stringent than the minimum code requirements. Such standards are generally developed based on past experience and are intended to complement design and operating procedures. In all cases, familiarity with applicable codes, standards, or specifications is required before the design commences.

LOCATION CLASSIFICATION The most significant factor contributing to the failure of a gas pipeline is damage to the line caused by human activity. Pipeline damage generally occurs during construction of other services. These services may include utilities, sewage systems or road construction and will increase in frequency with larger populations living in the vicinity of the pipeline. To account for the risk of damage, the designer determines a 313

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

314

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach TABLE 7-1. Location classification for North American codes (Ref CSA Z662, 2007) Canadian Code

American Code

Location Classification

Z662-07 (Liquid & Gas)

ASME B31.4 (Liquid)

ASME B31.8 (Gas)

Class 1 Class 2

Dwelling units 10 10 < dwelling units < 46 Building or area occupied by more than 20 people. Industrial installation susceptible to environmentally hazardous conditions. Dwelling units 46 Institutes that are difficult to evacuate. Dwelling 4 stories

Not applicable Not applicable

Dwelling units 10 10 < dwelling units < 46.

Not applicable

Dwelling units 46

Not applicable

Building 4 stories. Dense traffic or underground facilities.

Class 3 Class 4

location classification based predominantly on population concentrations. Canadian and American codes differ marginally in the requirements for determining a specific location classification. Table 7-1 reflects the requirements of the relevant North American codes.

PIPELINE DESIGN FORMULA The widely used formulae for determining the circumferential and axial stresses in a pressurized thin-walled pipe can be developed quite easily by considering the vertical and horizontal force equilibrium in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, respectively.

Figure 7-1.

Force equilibrium in a pressurized thin pipe

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-2.

A

315

Longitudinal force equilibrium

In Figure 7-1, a unit tangential force F is created in the pipe wall due to the application of an internal pressure, P, assumed to act on a unit length of pipe. The resultant vertical force due to this pressure is PD, so the equilibrating force F in the pipe wall must be PD‘/2. This force acts on an area of pipe wall, A, given by the product of the wall thickness t and unit depth (‘) of pipe. The tangential or hoop stress ST in the pipe wall is F/A, or

ST ¼

PD 2t

ð7 1Þ

This is the hoop stress equation, which can be transposed to yield the familiar Barlow equation for the wall thickness of the pipe. A similar consideration of the horizontal equilibrium of forces as shown in Figure 7-2 enables an expression for development of longitudinal stress in the cylinder. The longitudinal force acting on the pipe end and caused by the internal pressure is approximately F = P(D2/4), which is equilibrated by the force (Fpw) in the pipe wall. This force Fpw acts on an area approximated by Dt, so the axial stress Sx is 2

Sx ¼

F PD PD ¼ ﬃ A 4 Dt 4t

ð7 2Þ

A more accurate representation of the axial stress would be found by using the actual area of pipe wall resisting the longitudinal pressure force, that is, 2

Sx ¼

F Pd ¼ ðD2 d 2 Þ D2 d 2 4

ð7 3Þ

where D and d are the outer and inner diameters, respectively. This is slightly less conservative than using the thin-wall approximation. In a similar fashion, the bending section modulus Z of a thin-walled cylinder can be approximated as Z ﬃ r 2t, where r is the mean radius, or in exact terms: Z = /32[(D4d4)/D].

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

316

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach By way of comparison, consider a NPS 10 schedule 40 pipe subjected to an internal pressure of 1,000 psi. The longitudinal stresses for the exact and the thin-wall approximation are as follows: Exact:

2 1;00010:022 ¼ 6; 622 psi Sx ¼ Pd 2 2 ¼ D d 10:752 10:022

Thin wall:

1;00010:75 Sx ¼ PD 4t ¼ 40:365 ¼ 7; 363 psi

or an 11.2% variation. Similarly the variation in section modulus for the same pipe is D4 d 4 ¼ 10:754 10:024 ¼ 29:9 in3 Exact: z ¼ 32 D 32 10:75 Thin wall:

2

2

Z ¼ r t ¼ ½ð10:75 þ 10:02Þ=4 0:365 ¼ 30:9 in

3

or a 3.4% difference. The percentage variations on NPS10 schedule 80 pipe for longitudinal stress and section modulus are 16% and 5%, respectively. The degree of conservatism in the thin-wall approximation is worth noting when further consideration is given to the formulations in the various codes. Note: The foregoing is applicable only to thin-wall pipe where it is reasonable to assume that the stress is uniform throughout the wall thickness. As a rule of thumb such an assumption is invalid for D/t ratios less than 16. In thicker-walled pipe (commonly found in offshore applications), the radial stress varies from a maximum at the inner surface to a minimum at the outer surface and an alternative formulation to Equation (7-1) is required. Figure 7-3 illustrates an element in a thick-walled pipe for the general case of an internally applied pressure, pi, and external pressure, pe Timoshenko (1965), through the use of classical elasticity theory, has shown that the following expressions for radial stress Sr and tangential stress St apply to the element at any radius r. 2 2 2 2 2 2 p i r i r 0 þ r þ pe r o r r i St ¼ ð7 4aÞ 2 2 2 r r o ri and 2 2 2 2 2 2 pi ri r0 r pe ro r ri Sr ¼ 2 2 2 r r0 ri

ð7 4bÞ

Since the numerator in Equation (7-4a) will always exceed that of Equation (7-4b), it follows that the tangential stress will always be larger than the radial stress. Considering first the case where the pipe is subjected only to internal pressure, Equation (7-4a) becomes for (r = ri). 2 2 pi r o þ r i ð7 5Þ St ¼ 2 2 ro ri

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-3.

A

317

Tangential and radial stress in a thick-wall pipe

By substituting for ro in terms of ri and t and rearranging the terms, the following quadratic equation is obtained:

2 2 St pi t þ 2 r i St pi t 2 p i r i ¼ 0

ð7 6aÞ

Solving for the wall thickness, t gives: D t¼ 2

0:5 ! St þ pi 1 St pi

ð7 6bÞ

Equations (7-5) or (7-6b) may be rearranged to determine the bursting pressure for the pipe, which occurs when the tangential stress equals the ultimate tensile stress.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

318

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach TABLE 7-2. Comparison of design factors in North American codes (Ref CSA Z662, 2007 and ASME B31.8, 2003)

Application

CSA Z662-07 (Gas & Liquid)

ASME B31.8-03 (Gas) and ASME B31.4-02 (Liquid)

Design Factor Location Factor F L

Design Factor, F

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

Gas (nonsour) General & cased crossings Roads Railways Stations Gas (Sour service) General & cased crossings Roads Railways Stations High Vapor Pressure Liquid General & cased crossings

0.80 0.60 0.50 0.50

0.72 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.56 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.44 0.40 0.40 0.40

0.80 0.60 0.60 0.50

0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

0.72 0.60 0.50 0.50

0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

0.72 0.60 0.60 0.50

0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

0.64

0.64

0.64

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

Roads

0.64

0.64

0.64

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

Railways

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

Stations

0.64

0.64

0.64

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

Low vapor pressure liquid All but uncased RR crossings

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

Uncased railroad crossings

0.80

0.50

0.50

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

ASME B31.4-02 does not define a design factor, but opts to factor the specified minimum yield strength by 0.72. This factor has been incorporated into this table for comparison purposes only.

The following design formulae are used to calculate the wall thickness of a pipeline: P¼ where

2St FLJT ðRef CSA Z662 07Þ D

P = design pressure S = specified minimum yield strength, SMYS t = wall thickness D = outside diameter of pipe F = design factor = 0.80 (refer to Table 7-2) L = location factor (refer to Table 7-2) J = longitudinal joint factor (refer to Table 7-3) T = temperature derating factor (refer to Table 7-4).

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 7Þ

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

319

From (ASME B31.8 2003): P¼ where

2St FET D

ð7 8Þ

P , S, t, and D are defined as above and F = design factor (based on the location classification; refer to Table 7-2) E = longitudinal joint factor (refer to Table 7-3) T = temperature derating factor (refer to Table 7-4).

And from (ASME B31.4 2002): 2St FE D

P¼ where

ð7 9Þ

F = design factor = 0.72 (refer to Table 7-2) E = longitudinal joint factor (refer to Table 7-3).

The temperature derating factor is 1.0 provided:

30 C T pipe 120 C ðrefer to Table 7 4Þ: where

Tpipe = pipe temperature.

The maximum operating pressure (MOP) is used as the design pressure, P. The specified minimum yield strength S is chosen either from what is stockpiled or from what is available from the pipe mills. Commonly available yield strengths are 241, 289, 317, 414, 448, and 483 Mpa, which correspond to grades X35, X40, X50, X60, X65, and X70. The number following the X indicates the specified minimum yield strength of the material. The higher strengths are generally utilized on large-diameter pipelines. The pipeline diameter, D, is established during the system planning stage (refer to Chapter 3). The location factor, L, in CSA Z662, and the design factor, F, in ASME B31.8, depend on the location classification of the pipeline. No equivalent factor is defined in ASME B31.4, where an allowable stress is defined as 0.72 SMYS. Table 7-2 outlines the differences between the location-based factors for the North American codes. Code requirements should be reviewed in detail for specific exceptions and clarification. TABLE 7-3. Comparison of longitudinal joint factors in North American codes (Ref CSA Z662, 2007 and ASME B31.8, 2003) Longitudinal Joint Factor, J (CSA Z662-07) or E (ASME B31.4-02 and B31.8-03) Pipe Type Seamless Electric welded Resistance welded Induction/flash welded Fusion arc welded Fusion welded Submerged arc welded Spiral welded2 Furnace butt welded 1 2

CSA Z662-07 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.60

ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 –1.001 1.00 0.80 0.60

Value of E is dependent on the ASTM material classification. ASME B31.8 only.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

320

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach TABLE 7-4. Comparison of temperature derating factors for North American codes (steel pipe) (Ref CSA Z662, 2007 and ASME B31.8, 2003) Temperature Derating Factor, T Temperature (C) > 120 150 180 200 130 > 30 < 120

CSA Z662-07 ASME B31.8

ASME B31.4

1.00 0.97 0.93 0.91 0.87 1.00 1.00

The longitudinal joint factor J in CSA Z662 and E in the ASME codes are generally 1.0 for commonly used pipe types. However there are exceptions. Table 7-3 outlines the variations in the joint factor for the North American Codes. The temperature derating factor, T, is defined only in CSA Z662-07 and ASME B31.8. ASME B31.4 defines a range of temperatures for which Equation (7-9) is applicable. The range of temperatures defined by B31.4 is not as broad as that in the other North American codes. However, the requirements of B31.4 are consistent with the requirements of the other codes. Table 7-4 outlines the variations in the temperature-derating factor for the North American codes. Both CSA and ASME codes specify minimum allowable wall thicknesses for various pipe diameters. The intent is to minimize pipe damage during normal manufacturing, handling, construction, and operation.

EXPANSION AND FLEXIBILITY Piping has to be designed to have sufficient flexibility to prevent thermal expansion or contraction from causing excessive stresses in the piping material or imposing excessive forces or moments on equipment or supports. In many cases, allowable forces and moments on equipment may be less than those for the connecting piping. If expansion is not absorbed by direct axial compression of the pipe, flexibility should be provided by the use of bends, loops, offsets, and, in rare instances, by mechanical joints or couplings. In simple terms, a flexibility analysis determines a suitable piping layout so as to minimize pipe stresses. Such an analysis evaluates the range of stresses the piping system will encounter while undergoing cyclic loading. The most common of these ranges is the thermal expansion stress range caused by system start-up and shut-down conditions. Often the stress range encompassed by the consideration of the cold (start-up) and hot (shutdown) conditions will be sufficient to cover other thermal expansion conditions such as standby, or variations in operating envelopes. However, any cyclic condition that could result in a significant stress range, irrespective of whether or not the source is thermal expansion, will require evaluation. Hence, any event that could cause relative displacements between anchor points, such as settlement or seismic disturbance, would fall into this category. Some worked examples of sizing expansion loops are given later in this chapter. After determining that the piping layout has adequate flexibility, the designer is free to use judgement, span tables, or simple formulae to locate suitable positions for intermediate supports to carry weight and other loads. The nature of these supports will be dependent upon the magnitude of the likely pipe displacements at their proposed locations.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

321

For example, if these are very small then a rigid support may be used. Springs or gapped supports may be used to accommodate vertical or lateral displacements. The overriding consideration is that the support type must offer minimal restraint to the system as it undergoes cyclic loading, in order that the stress range is not unduly increased. Detailed consideration of support spacings and anchoring can be found later in this chapter. There are fundamental differences in loading conditions for buried or similarly restrained portions of piping and the above-ground portions not subjected to substantial axial restraint. Therefore, different limits on allowable expansion stresses are necessary. Note that the ASME B31.8 code does not clearly differentiate between restrained or unrestrained lines. Rather, it is the operator’s responsibility to define the type of restraint present, determine the loads causing axial stress and limit them appropriately. The assumption is made in both B31.4 and B31.8 that a buried pipeline is restrained and an above-ground pipeline is unconstrained, but this is not always an appropriate assumption.

Restrained Lines Expansion calculations are necessary for buried lines if significant temperature changes are expected. Thermal expansion of buried lines may cause movement at points where the line terminates, changes direction, or changes size. The hoop stress due to design pressure is determined in accordance with Equation (7-1): Sh ¼

PD 2t

For a pressurized pipe, the radial growth of the pipe will induce an opposite longitudinal (Poisson) effect to that caused by thermal effects. This will reduce the compressive stress such that SL ¼ Sh Ec ðT2 T1 Þ where

ð7 10Þ

SL = restrained longitudinal compression stress [given by Equation (7-2)] = Poisson’s ratio Ec = cold modulus of elasticity of steel = linear coefficient of thermal expansion T2 = maximum operating temperature T1 = ambient temperature at time of restraint (e.g. during backfilling) t = wall thickness.

In order to limit the combined equivalent stress on the pipe, various codes require that: Sh SL 0:9 S T where

ð7 11Þ

S = specified minimum yield strength T = temperature derating factor

Note that this formula does not apply if SL is positive (i.e. tension). Its derivation lies in considering the bi-axial state of stress in the pipe wall caused by the circumferential hoop stress and the longitudinal stress. The Tresca theory of failure states that failure will occur when the maximum shearing stress reaches the yield stess of the pipe material. The maximum shearing stress is the absolute value of the difference of the principal stresses in

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

322

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach the pipe wall. To arrive at a maximum allowable shearing stress, Sh SL is reduced by a design factor, in this case 0.9. For those portions of restrained pipelines that are freely spanning or supported above ground, the combined stress is limited in accordance with the following formula: Sh SL SB 0:9 S T where

ð7 12Þ

SB = absolute resultant value of beam bending stresses caused by dead and live loads acting in and out of plane on the pipe, and is given as follows: h

2

SB ¼ ð0:75 ii Mi Þ þð0:75 io Mo Þ

2

2 þMt

i0:5

z

ð7 13Þ

Note that Mi, Mo, and Mt are the in plane, out of plane, and torsional moments, respectively, acting on the pipe and Z is the section modulus. The terms ii and io refer to the in and out of plane stress intensification factors that have been identified for various critical piping components, usually by experimental means. They can be found for a variety of components such as elbows, mitres, and fabricated tees in Appendix ‘E’ of ASME B31.8 (2003). Equations (7-10) through (7-13) apply for both CSA Z662 and ASME B31.4, with one exception: ASME B31.4 does not include a temperature derating factor, but limits the range of applicable temperatures to under 1208C. It should also be noted that ASME B31:8 does not distinguish between restrained and unrestrained lines.

Unrestrained Lines Expansion calculations for above-ground lines have to account for thermal changes as well as beam bending and the possible elastic instability of the pipe and its supports (due to longitudinal compressive forces). CSA Z662, ASME B31.8, and ASME B31.4 segregate requirements for combining stresses in terms of unrestrained lines. However, the requirements vary slightly between the two codes and will therefore be addressed separately. In both CSA Z662 and B31.8, the stresses due to thermal expansion for those portions of pipeline systems without axial restraints are combined and limited in accordance with the following formulae: For bending Sb ¼ where

iMb Z

ð7 14Þ

Mt 2Z

ð7 15Þ

Sb = resultant bending stress i = stress intensification factor Mb = resultant bending moment Z = section modulus of pipe.

For twisting St ¼ where

St is the torsional stress and Mt is the twisting moment.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

323

The combined thermal expansion stresses can be combined as follows:

2

S E ¼ Sb þ

1 2 2 4St

ð7 16Þ

where SE = combined thermal expansion stress. However, the combined thermal expansion stress is not permitted to exceed 0.72 of the specified minimum yield stress times the temperature derating factor. In ASME B31.4, the bending stresses due to thermal expansion for those portions of pipeline systems without axial restraint have to be combined and limited in accordance with Equation (7-17) (for temperatures less than 1208C): n o0:5 2 2 z ð7 17Þ SB ¼ ðii Mi Þ þðio Mo Þ where

SB = resultant bending stress Mi = the in-plane bending moment ii = the stress intensification factor for bending in the plane of the member Mo = bending moment out of, or transverse to, the plane of the member io = stress intensification factor for out-of-plane bending.

The following limiting cases must also be satisfied; 0:5 SH þ SBðDÞ 0:54 S

ð7 18Þ

where

SB(D) = absolute value of beam bending compression stress resulting from dead loads A further limitation is caused by the addition of live loading so that S E þ SL þ S B ð D þ LÞ S

ð7 19Þ

where SL = longitudinal stress PD/4t and SL + SB(D + L) 0.85S SB(D + L) = absolute value of longitudinal bending stress from both dead and live loading. Both CSA and ASME codes specify minimum allowable wall thickness for various pipe diameters. The intent is to minimize pipe damage during normal manufacturing, handling, construction, and operation.

Sizing an Expansion Loop Before the widespread use of computer-based methods of structural analysis, designers had to rely on hand calculations and a number of simplifying assumptions in order to estimate pipe flexibility. The ASME B.31 code only deemed such calculations, or model testing, to be necessary in those circumstances where some doubt existed as to the adequate flexibility of the proposed system. The codes indicate that adequate flexibility may be assumed if a piping system is: p of uniform size p has two anchor points

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

324

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach p has intermediate restraints and satisfies the following approximate criterion: DY ðL U Þ

2

30 SA EC

ð7 20Þ

For ferrous metals this simplifies to: DY 2

0:03 ðImperialÞ or 208:3 ðSI unitsÞ

ð7 21Þ

ðL U Þ where

SA = f (1.25 Sc + 0.25 SH) D = nominal pipe size in inches (mm) Y = thermal expansion of the pipe, inches (mm) Sc = 0.67 ST at the minimum temperature S = specified minimum yield stress L = developed (total) length of pipe, feet (m) U = distance between anchors, feet (m) EC = cold modulus of elasticity, psi (MPa). f = a stress range factor to accomodate thermal cycling fatigue effects

Cycles, N

Factor, f

7,000 and less

1.0

> 7,000 to 14,000

0.9

> 14,000 to 22,000

0.8

> 22,000 to 45,000

0.7

> 45,000 to 100,000

0.6

> 100,000 to 200,000

0.5

> 200,000 to 700,000

0.4

> 700,000 to 2,000,000

0.3

Figure 7-4. shows a simple layout illustrating these parameters. Use of the above formula may be unconservative for a pipe having a large D/t ratio and should also be checked to ensure that the anchor reactions are satisfactory. Consider the sizing of an expansion loop required for a NPS 16 pipe of API 5LX60 material supported between anchor points 60 m apart (Figure 7-4). It is assumed that the installation temperature is 158C and the operating temperature is 808C. For a carbon or low alloy steel the rate of thermal expansion for the piping between 158C and 808C is approximately 75 mm/100 m. The restrained anchor movement y is therefore y¼U

75 60 75 ¼ ¼ 45 mm 100 100

Substituting D, L, U, and y into Equation (7-21) and noting that L = U + 2 h. 406ð45Þ 2 208:3 ð60þ2 h60Þ 2 87:79 ¼ 4h h ¼ 4:68 m

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-4.

A

325

Expansion loop

An alternative method of calculation involves treating each leg of the expansion loop as guided cantilevers of length h and assuming that each cantilever absorbs half the thermal expansion between the anchors (Figure 7-5).

Figure 7-5.

Guided cantilever end displacement

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

inches inches inches inches inches inches inches

OD OD OD OD OD NB NB

0.312 0.344 0.281 0.250 0.688 0.500 0.432

inches inches inches inches inches inches inches

w.t. w.t. w.t. w.t. w.t. w.t. w.t.

OD = Outside Diameter, NB = Nominal Bore.

16 20 16 16 16 10 6

1,150 1,000 1,000 880 2,800 2,800 2,800

P (psig) 162 162 162 162 150 150 150

To (88F) 142.2 222.2 142.2 142.2 142.2 64.2 24.4

Fs (lbf/ft.) 28,334 28,070 27,470 27,280 29,758 28,700 18,670

H (psi) 6,957 7,036 7,216 7,273 4,268 4,585 7,594

LA (psi) 14,167 14,035 13,735 13,640 14,879 14,350 9,335

LB (psi)

2,285 2,014 2,045 1,819 4,457 4,728 5,828

L (ft.)

9.81 8.62 8.71 7.73 17.66 18.60 20.41

(in.)

324,890 447,550 290,800 258,690 633,770 304,850 142,200

F (lbf.)

A

Pipe (API 5LX 60)

TABLE 7-5. Summary of end forces for high pressure pipelines (Schnockenberg, 2002)

326 Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

327

The flexibility stress induced in the cantilever due to an offset Y is found in Roark and Young (1975) to be SF ¼ where

DYEC 48h

2

SA (Imperial) or

3DYEC h

2

SA (S IÞ

ð7 22Þ

SA = allowable stress range = f (1.25 SC + 0.25 SH) D = nominal pipe size, inches (mm) Y = thermal displacement of the anchor, inches (mm) SC = 0.67 S T at the minimum temperature SH = 0.67 S T at the maximum temperature S = specified minimum yield stress of material (60,000 psi (4.14 MPa) in the example) T = stress derating factor due to temperature (Table 7-4) h = leg length of the loop, feet (mm) f = 1.0 for a system with less than 7,000 cycles

Since T = 1.0 for this steel over the temperature range of 15–808C, SC = SH hence SA ¼ 1:0fð1:25 0:67 60; 000 1:0Þ þ ð0:25 0:67 60; 000 1:0Þg ¼ 60; 000 psi or 4:14 MPA: Note that the restraint movement will be half that computed previously (i.e., 22.5 mm). Substituting in Equation (7-22) and solving for h, 3 406 22:5 208 10 h

3

2

414

from which h = 3.69 m. For a fully restrained line the longitudinal stress in the pipe is made up of two components: a tensile stress due to the Poisson effect from the internal pressure and a compressive stress caused by temperature change. It can be determined from the following expression: SL ¼ where

P Di E T 2t

ð7 23Þ

= Poisson’s ratio (0.3 for steel) E = modulus of elasticity, psi (MPa) (200 103 MPa for steel pipe) = linear coefficient of thermal expansion (11.7 106 mm/mm 8C) T = temperature change, 8C.

P, D and t are the internal pressure, the inside diameter, and the wall thickness of the pipe, respectively. A negative sign for SL indicates that the pipe is in compression, which will generally be the case for a pipe operating at a temperature greater than that prevailing at the time of installation. The maximum effective stress SEFF on the pipe occurs when the absolute largest value is obtained from the following equation: SEFF ¼ SH SL

ð7 24Þ

where SH = the hoop stress in the pipe. As noted this requirement corresponds to a maximum shear stress criterion.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

328

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Anchoring and Support Reinforced-concrete blocks are often used to serve as anchors. However, depending on soil conditions, other types of anchoring, such as steel pile and bracket, may be employed. All above-ground piping, barrels, and valves must be adequately supported. Supports usually bear on footings, slabs, or piles. The piping must be restrained from lateral movement. The supports must be insulated from the piping to isolate the facility electrically from ground faults. Stresses and deflections occur in pipelines at the transition from the below-ground (fully restrained) to the above-ground (unrestrained) condition. An analysis of the stresses and deflections in transition areas, resulting from internal pressure/temperature changes, is necessary to determine anchor block requirements and pipe size. Longitudinal deflections are used to check if an anchor block is required. The forces required to maintain the pipe in a fully restrained condition are then used to size the anchor block. Case 1 – No Anchor Consider a length of pipe capped at C, as shown in Figure 7-6. The section up to Point A is fully restrained, while the portion immediately to the right of B is unrestrained. Between A and B there is a transition from being restrained to unrestrained. Note that fully restrained is taken to mean a condition of zero longitudinal strain. As this line is pressurized and heated the pipe will elongate and end B will move to the right an amount L from some point of complete fixity, A, which is at a distance L1 from B. This distance, L1, to the point where the line can be considered fixed is a function of all of the parameters in Equation (7-23) plus the soil friction or resistance to pipe movement. In the unrestrained portion of the pipe, B-C, the longitudinal stress caused by the internal pressure will be half the hoop stress, less that due to the Poisson effect. The strain in the longitudinal direction due to internal pressure is therefore "PR ¼

SH SH 2E 2E

ð7 25Þ

while the strain caused by any change in temperature T is given by "TH ¼ T The net longitudinal strain at Point B will therefore be "B ¼ T þ

SH ð1 Þ 2E

ð7 26Þ

The longitudinal strain at point A is of course zero. The transition of stress and strain between Points A and B is assumed to vary as a linear function of length, L, as shown in Figure 7-7. In order to establish the length, L, over which the transition occurs, the longitudinal resistance of the soil must be known. A simplifying assumption is to consider the soil constraint to be constant per unit length so that any tendency to move will be counteracted by a constant and opposite soil force. Wilbur (1983) has recommended a design value for the resistance of average soils (in SI units): 2

FS ¼ 0:0813 Do

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-6.

where

Transition from full to unrestrained

FS = soil resistance/unit length of pipe, kN/m Do = outside pipe diameter, m.

Figure 7-7.

Stress and strain between points A and B

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

A

329

330

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Between A and B, equilibrium of forces exists and can be described as FS L ¼ AP ðSLB SLA Þ

ð7 27Þ

or L ¼ AP

ðSLB SLA Þ FS

ð7 28Þ

where the longitudinal stress at B, caused only by internal pressure is SH/2 while SLA = SH E T where Ap = cross-sectional area of the pipe L = length of pipe between fully restrained and unrestrained regions. The total movement at B will be the average strain between A and B over length L, given by = "B/2, which is exactly half what the movement at B would have been had the soil restraint been zero. Case II — With Anchor When an anchor is used to restrict longitudinal deflections, the stress distribution will be that shown in Figure 7-8. The transition from fully restrained to unrestrained occurs at the anchor. The resultant force on the anchor is simply the difference in stress on each side multiplied by the cross section area of the pipe. The anchor force is thus given by F ¼ ðSLB SLA ÞAP which can be written for the case of a capped end pipe 2 P Di PD F¼ E T AP þ 2t 4

ð7 29Þ

ð7 30Þ

In the case of an increase in wall thickness beyond the anchor block, the result is essentially the same. The decrease in stress is compensated by an increase in pipe metal area.

Figure 7-8.

Distribution at anchor location

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-9.

A

331

Plan view of anchor block (Schnockenberg, 2002)

Table 7-5 provides a sample summary of end forces for high pressure pipelines. As shown in the table, anchor block forces can be quite large. Therefore, careful attention must be paid to the design of the anchors. In order to minimize the size of the block, upper limits of lateral soil bearing pressures should be considered. Friction between the block and the soil can be used to reduce the size of the block. The block should be reinforced concrete, cast against undisturbed soil. Figures 7-9 and 7-10 depict a typical anchor block. Care should be taken to ensure that connected surface piping has sufficient flexibility to absorb a degree of lateral anchor movement. Scraper traps (see later), should be installed such that they move with the piping, rather than being rigidly attached to blocks. Instances of traps, together with their support blocks, being displaced a few centimeters are not uncommon.

Figure 7-10.

Cross-section through anchor block

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

332

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Support Spacing The various codes provide little guidance when selecting the spacing of above- or belowground supports. For example, CAN/CSA Z184-M92 simply states ‘‘supports shall be designed to support the pipe without causing excessive local stresses in the pipe.’’ The piping is thus identified as being the weaker member since, in general, the support can be designed to withstand practically any vertical load. The structural bearing capacity of the pipe will therefore govern the maximum allowable support load. TransCanada PipeLines’ practice (Kormann and Zhou 1995) has been to use a spacing equation derived from considerations of localized stresses in the pipe and the principles contained in the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code (1992). Roark and Young (1975) reference the following relationships with respect to a cylindrical shell subject to a line load over a very short length in the longitudinal direction. The membrane and bending stress components at the loading ‘‘point’’ are, respectively: SM ¼ 0:13 BPR

0:75

b

1:5 1:25

ð7 31Þ

t

and 1

SB ¼ B where

PR

0:25

b

0:5 1:75

ð7 32Þ

t

R = pipe radius, mm t = wall thickness, mm P = reaction force, or applied load, N 2b = width of the applied load, which corresponds to the length of the support, usually 3R B = b12(1 2)c0.125 = 1.348273 for steel with = 0.3.

The applied load P can be generalized by assuming a backfill density, M, of 15 kN/m3, and a steel density S, of 77 kN/m3. In the case of a gaseous fluid, the weight of the internal contents of the pipe is negligibly small, but for liquids it is necessary to add the weight of fluid to the self-weight of the pipe. Hence for a pipe on continuous supports spaced L distance apart, the applied load P is given by P = weight of overburden of pipe and contents (if applicable). For a gas: 6

P ¼ 15 DLH þ 77 DtL ﬃ 15 DLH 10 þ 240 DtL 10 6 P ¼ 15 DL ðH þ 16t Þ 10

6

ð7 33Þ

where H is the depth of soil cover (mm), L is the support spacing (mm), and D is the pipe diameter (mm). Substituting for P and B in Equations (7-31) and (7-32) gives: SM ¼ 2:41 10

6

LðH þ 16t ÞD

0:25 1:25

t

ð7 34Þ

and SB ¼ 10:803 10

6

0:75 1:75

LðH þ 16t ÞD

t

ð7 35Þ

The circumferential stress in the pipe can be written as: SCIRC ¼ SH SB þ SM

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 36Þ

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

333

The code requirements limits the hoop stress SH in piping at compressor and meter stations to 0.5 SMYS. Hence, SCIRC ¼ 0:5 SMYS + 10.803 10

6

0:75 1:75

LðH þ 16t ÞD

t

h i 0:5 1 0:223ðt=DÞ ð7 37Þ

For practical D/t ratios, the last term is negligible so SCIRC ¼ 0:5 SMYS + 10.803 10

6

0:75 1:75

LðH þ 16t ÞD

t

ð7 38Þ

Similarly the allowable or limiting value of the circumferential stress is set by the codes. In the case of combined bending and membrane stresses, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code sets the design stress as SALLOWABLE ¼ 1:5 SM

ð7 39Þ

For compressor and meter station piping, the limiting value for SM is given in CAN/ CSA Z184-92 as, SM ¼ 0:8 0:625 SMYS = 0.5 SMYS

ð7 40Þ

The limit for the total circumferential stress is therefore from Equations (7-38) and (7-39). SCIRC ¼ SALLOWABLE ¼ 1:5 0:5 SMYS = 0.75 SMYS

ð7 41Þ

Inserting this value into Equation (7-38) it can be rearranged to give, L ¼ 23; 142

1:75 SD ðD=t Þ ðH þ 16t Þ

ð7 42Þ

where S is the specified minimum yield stress (SMYS) in MPa. Note that SCIRC could be tensile or compressive. For above-ground supports it is necessary to omit the effects of overburden in Equation (7-34) and rework the various equations to yield, L ¼ 23; 142

1:75 SD ðD=t Þ 16t

ð7 43Þ

There are of course alternative formulations to Equation (7-43). One commonly used formula for estimating free span is: pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ L ¼ 0:123 SD where

L = support spacing, m S = specified minimum yield stress (SMYS), MPa D = pipe outside diameter mm.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 44Þ

334

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach In its derivation this equation disregards any localized stress effects, assumes zero axial constraint, and combines the primary membrane and bending streses such that they meet Tresca’s (maximum shear stress) yield criterion. STRESCA ¼ SMAX PRINCIPAL SMIN PRINCIPAL ¼ SH SL

ð7 45Þ

As mentioned above, the various codes limit SH to 50% SMYS in the vicinity of compressor and meter stations while the longitudinal stress is the sum of the bending stress in the pipe due to its weight plus the membrane stress caused by the pressure acting on the end cap closure: SL ¼

M D=2 þ 0:5 SH I

ð7 46Þ

where I = second moment of area of the pipe ﬃ D3t/8. Since the pipe is assumed to be continuously supported on a uniform span spacing of L the maximum bending moment M will be M ¼ 0:107 w L

2

ð7 47Þ

where w is the weight/unit length of the pipe and contents (if liquid). Neglecting the weight of its contents the maximum moment on the pipe will be, 2

2

2

M ¼ 0:107 S DtL ¼ 0:107 77 DtL ¼ 25:88 DtL 10

6

ð7 48Þ

The longitudinal stress becomes 6 2

SL ¼

32:9 10 L þ 0:5 0:5 S D

ð7 49Þ

Following the same argument used to develop Equation (7-43), the allowable stress in Tresca’s yield criterion is limited to 1.5 times 50% SMYS or 0.75 SMYS. Equation (7-45) can then be written as ( ) 2 6 L 0:75 S ¼ 0:5 S 0:25 S 32:9 10 D Solving for L, rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 3 SD L¼ 10 mm ¼ 0:123 SD m; 65:8 as per Equation (7-44). Above-ground supports have two additional functions besides supporting the weight of the piping: First, they provide protection to the termination points of compressors and vessels by restricting lateral and sometimes axial movement of the piping. Second, they help prevent excessive vibration of the piping. This is accomplished by choosing span lengths such that the natural vibration frequencies of the piping system is well removed from that of any source of excitation. Tuning the fundamental frequency of the piping to be greater than 30 Hz is a useful ‘‘rule of thumb,’’ since excitation at frequencies above this value rarely has sufficient energy to create large displacements.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

335

TABLE 7-6. Comparison of support spacings equations Pipe

D (mm)

t (mm)

S (MPa)

Spacing Eq. (7-43) (m)

Spacing Eq. (7-44) (m)

Spacing Eq. (7-53) (m)

1 2 3 4

610 610 914 914

18.3 11.0 19.2 16.5

290 483 414 483

30.2 33.4 32.98 34.37

51.7 62.9 75.6 81.7

8.2 8.2 10.1 10.1

The fundamental frequency of an individual span of a continuously supported piping system can be estimated by assuming that the end supports are fixed. 2 sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 4:73 EI !1 ¼ ð7 50Þ L A where ! = the fundamental angular frequency (rad/s), A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe ﬃ Dt, I is the second moment of area ﬃ D3t/8 (mm4), and the other symbols are as defined earlier in this chapter. Substituting for E, , A and I in Equation (7-50) yields f ¼

6 D ! ¼ 6:37 10 2 2 L

ð7 51Þ

By limiting frequency f to greater than 30 Hz, Equation (7-51) can be solved for L: L¼

D

0:5

10 2:17

3

ð7 52Þ

If in Equation (7-52) D and L are expressed in units of millimeters and meters, respectively, and the denominater is replaced by the more easily remembered 3 (which also serves to increase the frequency of the system), a simple design formula based on vibration avoidance would be 0:5

L¼

D m 3

ð7 53Þ

Table 7-6 illustrates the variation in pipe spans for a few typical pipe sizes using the various equations developed above, and clearly shows that large pipe spans result if localized stresses and vibration considerations are neglected and only the Tresca criterion is used.

JOINT DESIGN FOR PIPES OF UNEQUAL WALL THICKNESS Background Situations arise where the joining of two pipelines of equal diameters but of unequal wall thickness is required. The usual industrial practice is to specify a particular length of counterbore that will ensure that local moments at the joint (caused by the interaction of

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

336

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach longitudinal stress) and the centroidal eccentricity of dissimilar wall thicknesses are reduced to a satisfactory level at the joint location. It has been shown (Colquhoun and Cantenwalla 1984) that the local moment caused by centroidal eccentricity falls off quite rapidly prior to reaching the heat-affected zone of butt weld joints. The rate of decay is a function of the diameter of the pipe and the diameter to wall thickness ratio (D/t). The moments and corresponding local stresses dissipate more rapidly in thinner, smaller pipe diameters.

Design Procedure If the difference between wall thicknesses is equal to or less than 1.0 mm, no transition is required. In such cases the stress concentration generated by such a small discontinuity is not large enough to pose a problem; however, differences greater than 1 mm have been shown by industry experience to result in failure in large diameter pipe.

Pipes Operating with High Hoop Stresses For pipes operating at hoop stresses of 80% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), the following procedures are applicable. First, whenever (t1t2)i 0.3 t2, the thicker wall pipe is counterbored and tapered with a length of counterbore (L) greater than or equal to Lo, but not less than 50 mm, where: 0:85D Lo ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ mm ðD=t2 Þ

ð7 54Þ

This technique ensures a reduction in the local stress of over 75% at the weld joint. In the case where (t1 t2) 0.3 t2, the thicker wall pipe may be backbevelled as per Figure 7-11. Another consideration is a transition occurring at a bend location. The transition welds are not typically located in the immediate region of high bending moments (such as may be generated by a field overbend or sag bend). In these situations the transition weld is generally located at a distance of not less than Xo from the point of high bending moment, where rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 2 4 D t Xo ¼ ð7 55Þ 10 for t = t1, or t2, as appropriate. As an example, consider the case when D = 914 mm and t = 12.7 mm. Then the minimum distance is p ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 4 2 914 12:7 ¼ 5:7 m Xo ¼ 10 Fitting Pipes Operating at Lower Stress Levels For pipes where the transition joint is designed to operate at hoop stresses equal or less than 60% SMYS, joint connections may be formed by a backbevel as shown in Figure 7-11. Alternatively the thicker wall pipe may be counterbored and a tapered transition provided as per the above requirement, detailed in Figure 7-12.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

337

Figure 7-11. Backbeveled joint design for piping designed to operate at a hoop stress of 60% SMYS or less

Design of Branched Connections Some typical branch connections are shown in Figure 7-14; of these, the extruded or welding tee is preferred in the various codes, from a design viewpoint, since the absence

Figure 7-12.

Counterbore and taper joint design for transition welds joining pipe of unequal wall thickness. Tolerances in mm.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

338

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-13.

Flowchart summary of procedure for selection of transition

of sharp edges reduces pressure losses as well as eliminates potential stress raisers. The underlying concept, whether for single or multiple openings, is that of area reinforcement. Figure 7-15 (Adapted from ASME B31.8) shows that the area removed from the carrier pipe has to be compensated and this may involve the addition of full encirclement reinforcing material. Generally reinforcement is not required if the opening is less than 2.5 inches (60.3 mm) outside diameter; although, since these types of openings are often subject to pulsating vibration, appropriate support should be provided. Table 7-7 shows the special requirements needed for branch connections. Fabricated tees are often used and the following worked example illustrates the necessary steps to ensure an adequate connection. Example An NPS 8 branch connection is to be welded to an NPS 16 carrier pipe. The carrier pipe material is API 5L X46 with a wall thickness of 0.406 inch. The outlet material is API 5L Grade B (Seamless) Schedule 40 with a wall thickness of 0.322 inch. The working pressure is 1,450 psig and the working temperature is 1258F. The pipe is being used in a Class 1 Division 2 location. 1. Design factors: F = 0.72, T = 1.0, and E = 1.0 (from Tables 7-2, 7-3). 2. Specify the branch pipe wall thickness For Grade B, Sy = 35,000 psi Tb ¼

PD 1; 450 8:635 ¼ ¼ 0:248 inch sufficient 2SFET 2 35; 000 0:72 1 1

Note: Schedule 40 provides a wall thickness of 0.322 inch (i.e. Tb)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-14.

A

339

Typical branch connections

3. Specify the carrier pipe wall thickness i.e. Tmh ¼

PD 1; 450 16 ¼ ¼ 0:35 inch < 0:406 inch specified (i. e. Tp) 2SFET 2 46; 000 0:72 1 1

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

340

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-15.

Concept of area reinforcement

4. Required reinforcement Area AR ¼ d tmh d ¼ 8:625 2 0:322 ¼ 7:981 inches 2 ; AR ¼ 7:981 0:35 ¼ 2:763 in 5. Extra area in carrier pipe wall - A1 (see Figure 7-15) A1 ¼ ðTp tmh Þ d Where Tp is the specified wall thickness A1 ¼ ð0:406 0:35Þ 7:981 2 ¼ 0:447 in

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

341

TABLE 7-7. Special requirements, branch connections (taken from ASME B31.8, Clause 831.42) Ratio of Branch Diameter to Run Diameter Ratio of Hoop Stress to SMYS in Run

1/4 or less

Greater than 1/4 but 1/2 or less

20% or less

Reinforcement not mandatory, but may be required for special cases.

Reinforcement not mandatory, but may be required for special cases.

Greater than 20 % but 50% or less.

Calculation not required for openings 2.5 in. and smaller. If reinforcement required, any type of reinforcement permitted with special welds. Calculation not required for openings 2.5 in. and smaller. If reinforcement required, any type of reinforcement permitted with special welds not thicker than run.

If reinforcement required, any type of reinforcement permitted with special welds.

Greater than 50%

Welding tee preferred, full encirclement should be used, but pad, saddle, or weld-on fitting permitted. Special welds required.

Greater than 1/2 If reinforcement required, it must be full encirclement if reinforcement extends more than halfway around pipe. If reinforcement required, it must be full encirclement with special welds if reinforcement extends more than halfway around pipe. Welding tee preferred, otherwise full encirclement is required with special welds, opening inside corner radiused, and thick pad tapered at ends.

Note: A welding tee may always be used instead of any fabricated branch connection.

6. Extra area in branch wall - A2 A2 ¼ 2ðTB tb ÞL4 Where TB is the specified branch wall thickness L4 is the smaller of 2 Tp=2 or Tb =2 þ M and M is the actual or nominal thickness of added reinforcement L4 L4 or L4 use L4

¼ 2 Tp =2 ¼ 20:406=2 ¼ 1:797 inches ¼ 2 Tp =2 . ¼ 2 0:322 2 þ M ¼ ð1:839 þ M Þ inches ¼ 1:797 inches to determine A2

Hence use A1 ¼ 2ð0:322 0:248Þ 1:797 2 A2 ¼ 0:266 in 7. Additional reinforcement area required - A3 A3 ¼ AR ðA1 þ A2 Þ ¼ 2:763 ð0:442 þ 0:266Þ 2 ¼ 2:055 in For a class 1 location, the ASME B31-8 requirement (clause 831.42) calls for the reinforcement to be of the full encirclement type.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

342

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach 8. Determine the thickness of the reinforcement - ‘‘M’’ The weld leg length lw is the smallest of TB, M or 3/8 inch lw < 0.322 inch, M or 0.375 inch, say 0.322 inch since M is unknown d þ TB lr ¼ d 2 7:981 ¼ 7:981 þ 0:322 2 lr ¼ 3:669 inches 2 A3 ¼ 2 1=2 lw þ Mlr 2 2:055 ¼ 2 1=2 0:322 3:66M M ¼ 0:266 inch

Since the specified carrier and branch pipe thickness are substantially larger than needed for the operating pressure, a reinforcing ring of 0.27 inch will be adequate. It is important to note that when the ratio of the size of opening to the diameter of the parent pipe becomes large the current methodology of area replacement specified by the various codes can lead to lower factors of safety than anticipated (Horsley et al. 1999). This is particularly the case with hot tapping, where the branch pipe is ‘‘tapped’’ into an existing pressurized or ‘‘hot’’ main line. Hot tapping has the obvious benefit of not requiring the main carrier pipe to be empty or depressurized, thus there is no loss of product nor interruption to production. (Many hot taps are performed on pipelines at full line pressure and full flow conditions). These demanding conditions however require careful measures to ensure high integrity welds. The flowing product carries away heat from the weld zone, hence high cooling rates are experienced and it is impossible to maintain a level of preheat in the carrier pipe. Often hot tap connections are made with an older pipe, which may have a high carbon equivalent content. It is the susceptibility to hydrogen cracking caused by the combination of high carbon equivalent material and high cooling rates that can cause problems, particularly if the thick-walled branch connection is used. For this reason Horsely et al. (1999) recommends that the material in the branch should be of as high a grade as is practical so that the pipe wall is as thin as possible.

Piping Vibration The minimum recommended mechanical natural frequency for piping components is 30 hertz. In addition, the predicted mechanical natural frequencies should not lie within 20% of primary excitation frequencies. Typical primary excitation frequencies at reciprocating compressor sites include: 1. First and second harmonics of the reciprocating equipment speed range for piping close to the equipment.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

343

2. First harmonic of the rotating equipment run speed range for piping close to the equipment. 3. First harmonic of a reciprocating compressor run speed range for piping exposed to compressor pulsations when only single-acting load steps are part of operating conditions. First and second harmonics of reciprocating compressor run speed range when double-acting load steps are present. Note that the term ‘‘close to the equipment’’ refers to piping for which significant transmissibility exists between the piping and mechanical excitation. Acoustical Guidelines Allowable Pressure Pulsation Pulsation levels in piping should follow the guideline (API 618 - Section 3.9.2.7): 1:255 P1

Pp ¼

ðP1 ID f Þ

0:5

ð7 56Þ

where Pp = lineside piping guideline pulsation level, in kPa (peak to peak). About 1% of line pressure P1 = average absolute line pressure, kPa ID = inside pipe diameter, meters f = pulsation frequency, hertz. Pulsation levels at reciprocating compressor valves should meet the following guideline (API 618 - 3.9.2.2.3): Prv ¼ 0:03 P1 R

ð7 57Þ

where

Prv = reciprocating compressor valve guideline pulsation level, kPa (peak to peak) P1 = average absolute line pressure, kPa R = ratio of absolute discharge pressure over absolute suction pressure for the stage to which the valve belongs. Allowable Acoustical Shaking Forces Shaking forces in above-ground piping should meet the following industry accepted guideline: Fp ¼

7; 874 ID 0:5

ð7 58Þ

ð f =30Þ where

Fp = piping shaking force guideline in Newtons peak (up to 2,000 Newtons peak maximum) ID = inside pipe diameter, meters (if greater than 0.254 m then use 0.254 m) f = shaking force frequency, hertz (if less than 30 Hz, then use 30 Hz).

Shaking forces in vessels should meet the following guideline: Fv ¼

2; 000 ð f =30Þ

0:5

ð7 59Þ

Fv = vessel shaking force guideline, Newtons peak (up to 2,000 Newtons peak maximum) f = shaking force frequency, hertz.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

344

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Allowable Pulsation-Induced Meter Error Meter errors caused by pulsations are calculated for orifice and turbine types of meters. The maximum predicted metering error should be reduced to one percent or lower. Orifice plate metering error is evaluated as follows (ISO 3313): E0 ¼ where

2 0:5

2 1 þ V =2Q 1 100

ð7 60Þ

E0 = orifice plate metering error, percent V = volume velocity at the orifice, cubic meters per second peak Q = actual mean flow rate through the orifice, cubic meters per second.

Performance Guidelines Allowable Pressure Drop Reciprocating compressor pulsation suppression devices should meet the following guideline (API 618 - 3.9.2.2.4): Pd ¼ where

1:67ðR 1Þ R

ð7 61Þ

Pd = maximum pressure drop based on steady flow through a pulse suppression device expressed as a percentage of the absolute average line pressure at the inlet of the device; the minimum guideline pressure drop is 0.25% R = ratio of absolute discharge pressure over absolute suction pressure for the stage to which the pulsation suppression device belongs.

Pipe Soil Interaction From the earlier discussions on codes and standards in Chapter 1, it is apparent that in order to ensure the structural integrity of a pipeline system, the codes must also recognize design conditions other than those of pressure and temperature. In geotechnical design slopes, fault movements are important considerations while seismic-related earth movements, thaw settlements, and frost heave may also bear consideration. All of the foregoing are imposed deformations with regard to the pipeline and would ordinarily result in a localized, nonlinear response, which is not specifically covered in the codes. Rather, the designer is required to determine what supplemental design criteria will be needed to provide an adequate response to these imposed deformations. Longitudinal strain has often been chosen as the quantity upon which to establish the governing criteria for the following reasons: 1. The loads ensuing from imposed deformations are self-limiting in nature, because they are developed by the constraints of adjacent material or by the self-constraint of the pipeline. That is to say, secondary stresses are developed, which satisfy strain displacement compatibility within the pipe or between the pipe and the supporting medium. Local yielding and minor distortions may result from these secondary stresses but they will generally not cause failure in and of themselves. Under these conditions, deformations or strains, rather than loads, are the quantities that control the response of the pipe.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

345

2. All of the types of ground movement noted above will usually be sufficiently large as to cause the pipe to deform into the elastoplastic regime of the material. Here, the almost flat stress-strain characteristic of a pipeline steel means that strain is the sensitive quantity when considering the equilibrium state of the pipeline. 3. It is essential to note that it is strain and not stress that causes structural failures. If the longitudinal strain is sufficiently large in compression, then local buckling of the pipe wall will result. Conversely, there is also a limit on the magnitude of the tensile longitudinal strain since in combinations with the hoop strain in a pressurized line, the material could readily become inelastic. A commonly used criterion for the maximum tensile strain in the longitudinal direction is 0.5%, though in general, this is a conservative value. Usually, the maximum acceptable value of compressive longitudinal strain is that which will bring about the onset of local buckling of the pipe wall, even though there are a number of documented instances where severe corrugation of the pipe has taken place without the initiation of a rupture (Dykes 1996). The conservatism here is due to the unstable postbuckling behavior of cylindrical thin shell structures. Generally the load-carrying capacity of such shells falls off dramatically once local buckling is initiated. However, for a buried pipeline load-carrying capacity is not a significant factor, hence a comparatively large amount of deformation can occur before the pipeline will lose its capacity to carry internal pressure.

Pipe Lowering Stresses On occasion, such as when there has been severe topsoil erosion or when a line needs to be relocated at new road or rail crossings, it becomes necessary to lower the initially straight pipe. This action will cause two new stresses on the pipe; the first a bending stress due to the change in direction, and the second an extension stress caused by the longer path length it needs to follow. Conceptually the line lowering profile consists of a series of uniform-radius bends. Considering the segment shown in Figure 7-16, it can be deduced from the principle of intersecting arcs that: ð2R h=2Þ h=2 ¼ ð‘=4 ‘=4Þ where

ð7 62Þ

R = radius of curvature, m h = is the lowering depth ‘ is the span length over which lowering occurs.

Figure 7-16.

Line lowering profile

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

346

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach From which 1 R¼ h

" 2 2 # ‘ h þ 4 2

ð7 63Þ

The bending stress SB induced is found from SB ¼

E:r R

where r is the external radius of the pipe, and E Young’s modulus of elasticity. The change in length of the pipe due to axial straining can be shown to be approximately: ! 2 4 8h 32 h ð7 64Þ ‘ ¼ ‘ 3 ‘2 5 ‘4 and since the sag is a small fraction of the lowered length, the second term can be neglected. The axial stress Sx in the pipe can then be written: Sx ¼

2 8E h 3 ‘

ð7 65Þ

The combined longitudinal stress Scomb due to line lowering is the sum of Sx and SB, that is: 2 Er 8E h ð7 66Þ þ Scomb ¼ R 3 ‘ Allowable Differential Settlement — Simplified Method A simple, first approximation of the allowable differential pipe settlement in soil can be developed by assuming the bottom of the pipe remains in contact with the soil. The expected soil deformation may be represented as a sine curve, in which case Figure 7-17a illustrates the ditch bottom profile. Although the differential settlement is derived using an elastic analysis, the model is also instructive for an inelastic case. From the Engineer’s Theory of Simple Bending: 2

EI

d y dx

2

2

¼ M or

d y dx

2

¼

M 1 ¼ EI R

M = applied bending moments E = Young’s modulus of elasticity R = radius of curvature I = second moment of area. For a sine curve x y ¼ a sin ‘

ð7 67Þ

where

where

‘ = half-span or half-wave length a = deflection amplitude = 2a = total pipe deflection.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 68Þ

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-17a.

A

347

Differential settlement

the curvature d2y/dx2 at midspan is readily deduced to be: 2

d y dx

2

¼ a

‘

2

¼

2

1 R

ð7 69Þ

hence a = ‘2/2R. However, = 2a and L = 2‘, so the total pipe deflection becomes: 2

¼

L 2

2 R

ð7 70Þ

Differential Settlement Analysis A more accurate, though complex means of determining whether the critical ‘‘pipe’’ curvature has been exceeded can be obtained by modeling the pipe as a continum of ‘‘finite elements,’’ supported by a nonlinear soil foundation. In the analysis, the pipe profile is permitted to deviate from the ditch bottom profile for two reasons: 1. The soil under the pipe deforms under its weight and the overburden. 2. The pipe will span short depressions in the soil profile. The key step in the analysis is to represent the pipe soil interaction by a finite-element model in which the pipe is discretized into a number of one-dimensional beam elements interconnected at their end points (nodes). Pipe stiffness, transverse loads, axial loads, and foundation ‘‘spring’’ stiffness are aggregated at these node points to form a set of algebraic equations, which can easily be solved on a computer. The model is subject to the usual assumptions of beam theory, that is: the deflections are small, plane sections remain plane, shear deflections are ignored, etc. The interaction of the beam model and the soil is defined at each node point using a load deflection curve, such as that shown in Figure 7-17b. In this figure represents the

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

348

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-17b. Load deflection curve

deflection of the pipe and Q is the soil reaction, defined as a force per unit length of pipe. In the figure, the soil reaction is zero for deflections less than the soil settlement . A deflection larger than will cause an upward reaction Q as determined by the curve. While the shape of the Q - curve is the same at all nodes, except for the value of the settlement , it can vary if soil properties change locally. Because of the nonlinear soil response defined by Figure 7-17b, an iterative procedure must be used to solve the algebraic equations and so determine the final deflected shape. The calculated deflections will be correct for the model to within the tolerance set for the iteration process; errors in the analysis are introduced only by the approximation of the true pipe soil interaction as a discretized model. This error can be reduced by increasing the number of elements in the model — at the expense of increasing solution time. Geotechnical Considerations In addition to the need to consider pipe soil interaction, discussed earlier in this chapter, there are two further geotechnical considerations that warrant attention: slope stability and seismicity. There is a considerable body of literature on both topics and space limitations here will permit a discussion of only the principal issues rather than analysis. The attention of the reader is therefore directed to the cited references for a full understanding of the issues. On slope stability: Bowles (1997), CGL (1984), Rajani and Morgenstern (1993), Wroth and Wood (1978); and for seismicity: O’Rouke and Lane (1989), Cornell (1969), Bazzurro and Cornell (1994), Campbell, (1991), and Mashaly and Datta (1989). Slope Stablility For those pipelines that are required to pass through hilly or even mountainous areas, slope instability can be a critical design issue. In many instances even gentle slopes exhibit slow soil movements of the order of 103 – 102 m/year (Bughi et al. 1996), while Rizkalla et al. (1996) cite ground movements as rapid as 6 cm/year on steep slopes. When such movements interfere with a pipeline, they can induce unacceptably high strains in the pipe wall over a period of time (1 to 5 years). They can in fact trigger failure modes in the pipe as evidenced by statistics collected for pipelines crossing active slopes (EGIG 1993). Hence there is a need for acceptable design criteria and appropriate monitoring systems when lines go into service. Current techniques for producing ground movements are based on traditional geotechnical analysis (deterministic or probabalistic), and require extensive geotechnical data that is often hard to obtain for large pipeline networks. Hence the identification of slide mechanisms, and of the controlling parameters of ground movement,

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

349

is a difficult task. Landslides, or slips, occur whenever an unstable mass of material slides along a specific surface or zone known as the failure surface. Many of the steeper slopes along a pipeline route occur on the approaches to river crossings. In order to maintain the integrity of the pipeline and minimize slope disturbances, all such sites have to be investigated and, if necessary, stabilized prior to commissioning the line. The analysis of the slow movement of slopes is invariably based on continuum mechanics and usually consider the following aspects: 1. A limit state for the slope (see later section on ‘‘Reliability-Based Design’’). 2. Continuous deformation in the soil when a state of limit equilibrium is reached. The first type of model involves examining the equilibrium conditions along a number of potential failure surfaces. The ratio of the available forces providing equilibrium (the shear strength of the material along the failure surface) to the forces tending to cause movement (gravity/horizontal seismic forces) is defined as the factor of safety. A condition of incipient failure is postulated along a continuous slip surface of known, or assumed, shape. A quantitative estimate of the factor of safety of the slope, with respect to the shear strength of the soil to that required to maintain equilibrium, is obtained by examining the soil equilibrium above the potential rupture surface. This exercise is repeated for each potential failure surface, and the failure surface resulting in the lowest factor of safety is considered the most critical. Normally, for ease of computation, circular shape failure surfaces are analyzed; however, where geologic conditions indicate the possibility of a significantly noncircular critical failure surface, such failure surfaces are also analyzed. An example of the latter case would be that of a specific weak plane in otherwise more competent soil. A frequently used model (Bughi et al. 1996) in the case of limit equilibrium analysis (aspect 2, above), uses the Coulomb Mohr failure criterion 1

appl lim ¼ c þ ð w Þ tan ’

ð7 71Þ

where

appl = value of the applied shear stress due to load lim = shear strength of the material c1 and ’ = cohesion and friction angles of the soil w = pore pressure (w) = current value of the normal effective stress.

A limit equilibrum condition at a point in the soil may occur whenever there is an increase in the shear stresses appl due to additional external loads, or through a decrease in the soil shear strength lim. Depending on the constitutive law describing the stress-strain characteristic of the soil, deformation will occur as the stress state in the soil approaches the failure condition. For shallow types of failures, there is a general understanding of the failure mechanism, which enables the stability of the slopes to be analyzed. Shallow failures on the rightof-way or in the ditch backfill above the pipe will not directly threaten the integrity of the pipeline. However, they may initiate surface water erosion, which could ultimately affect pipe stability. Deep-seated failure can be analyzed using conventional slope stability analysis provided sufficient field data is available. The necessary data are: the slope geometry, soil conditions, ground-water conditions, stratigraphy, shear strength properties of the soil, and thermal properties of the soil, if the location is such that soil freezing can occur. A failure

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

350

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach involving soil movement to a depth greater than 2–3 m (8–10 feet) is considered to be deepseated. In order to determine which slopes along the proposed pipeline route may be susceptible to a deep-seated failure, a close inspection of aerial photography and site inspection (see Chapter 2) is required. This will enable the general slope and ground conditions to be assessed, particularly in the vicinity of those areas where this type of failure has occurred in the past. Where slopes on or adjacent to the right-of-way are considered to be marginally stable, and where a slope failure may affect the integrity of the pipe, or cause unacceptable erosion, some form of slope stabilization becomes necessary. Common methods for stabilizing slopes are based on one or a combination of the following techniques: p Reduce the loads causing failure p Increase the internal soil resistance through reduction of the pore-water pressure p Increase the resisting forces by toe loading p Increase the resisting forces by structural means Generally speaking, preventive measures involving gravity drainage earthworks will prove to be the most suitable and cost- effective, though it may be necessary to resort to sheet piling and grading, which are both more expensive. Reducing Loads Causing Failure Flattening a marginally stable slope by cutting or grading it to a flatter angle is one means of stabilizing to prevent either shallow or deep-seated failure. However, it should not be used in areas of permafrost because the removal of the top layer of ice-rich soil will also remove the insulation it provides. Thus thawing will be greatly accelerated and this could lead to shallow slumping. Lowering the Ground-Water Level This method is particularly effective in preventing deep-seated failures. It involves lowering the ground-water level in the ‘‘driving’’ or active earth pressure area of a potential or existing slide, thus reducing the hydrostatic loading and increasing the soil shearing resistance. It is relatively inexpensive to achieve where drainage can be accomplished by a gravity system. It is generally used in conjunction with a diversion system for the control of ground water (see Chapter 9).

Reduction of Pore-Water Pressures Improving Surface Drainage The improvement of surface drainage by reducing the flow of water on or near the surface of slopes, increases the soil-shearing resistance by reducing the pore-water- pressures as well as the load-causing failure. The method referred to in Lowering the Ground-Water Level is applicable to improvement of surface drainage. In addition, the use of shallow trench drains down the right-of-way slope will control downslope drainage by channeling the flow in a gravel-filled trench. These methods are most effective in stabilizing slopes susceptible to shallow-type failure. Internal Drainage Internal drains such as horizontal bored drains, blanket drains, and vertical sand drains are often used to reduce excess pore-water pressure and thereby increase the soil shearing resistance. It is important to know the pore pressure regime in the soil since it is the variation in this regime that ultimately causes deformation. For instance, negative pressures in the pore fluid (suctions) produce an increase in the soil’s shear strength (Bughi et al. 1996). This can be seen in Equation (7-71).

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

351

Revegetation Revegetation is a favored method for slope erosion control, but normally it becomes fully effective several years after construction. Toe Loading The equilibrium of a stable slope can be upset by the addition of new overloads at the top of a slope or else by erosion at the toe. Both of these effects will alter the value of the applied shear stress. In cases where a slope is deemed to be marginally stable, and particularly where there is evidence of active erosion at the toe, toe loading or earth buttresses may be used to provide stabilization. Compacted earth buttresses placed on a slope, or berms placed on the lower portion of a potential slide area and beyond the toe, should consist of free draining material so as to encourage drainage from the slope. This method applies equally well to both shallow and deep-seated types of failure. When earth fills are used to stabilize slopes at river crossings, they have to be suitably armored to provide protection against erosive action from river flows.

Structural Methods Stabilization of a potential or existing slide area may be accomplished by structural methods such as the use of retaining walls, earth anchors, vertical piles, or sheeting. Since these methods require that resistance to mass movement be obtained from below the slide area, it must be determined where a potential or existing failure plane is located. This will usually require detailed field investigation in order to determine the ground conditions so that the extent and type of slope stabilization can be determined. Grading of soil or rock slopes is occasionally undertaken to increase soil strength or to decrease compressibility or permeability. However, it is generally quite costly and only justified when the more convential, simpler procedures described previously are unsuccessful. Seismic Effects Pipelines in seismic regions are vulnerable to earthquake loads, which could cause significant damage. Most earthquakes have their origin in tectonics, that is the energy causing the motion is produced from the tearing and grinding of the material associated with a slippage movement within an active fault system. A consideration of the geology along the pipeline route, is therefore pertinent to an assessment of potential earthquake activity. It would be appropriate, for example, to consider that the maximum magnitude of earthquake would occur either on an existing fault system or relatively close to it, where supplementary faulting might develop. However, as one moves away from such a region it is reasonable to assume that somewhat smaller magnitudes of earthquake are likely to be developed than along the main fault system. Associated with the magnitude is the local intensity felt at the pipeline, of an earthquake centered deep in the earth beneath the pipeline, or some distance away horizontally but at the same focal depth. In general, large earthquakes occur at focal depths of 70 to 80 km or greater, while those smaller in magnitude have a depth of focus of approximately 50 km. The ground wave attenuates with distance; Esteva (1970) concluded that the analysis of several strong motion accelerograph records ‘‘indicates that the predominant part of strong earthquake ground motions is represented by surface waves.’’ Hence, in order to take account of earthquakes centered some distance away, either directly below the pipeline or offset from it, an appropriate attenuation relationship for the region should be used. While not mandated, the Canadian Code for Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems Z662-03 (2007), in an Appendix, states that the determination of earthquake loads and pipeline displacements from ground motion data shall be based on the response spectrum method, the time history method, or equivalent methods. ASME B31.8 while addressing the subject of soil liquefaction (where the soil behaves like a fluid having lost its shear strength due to intense dynamic cyclic loading), states that the seismic design conditions

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

352

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach used to predict liquefaction shall have the same recurrence interval as that used to determine the operating design strength. On this basis the available historical data, the recurrence rates of earthquakes and their intensity can be assembled for number of predetermined sections or ‘‘links’’ of the pipeline. The seismic risk along the pipeline route can be described in statistical terms as a Poisson process, and the attenuation law for assessing the ground motion intensity at a given location of the pipeline is written as a function of the earthquake magnitude, source to site distance, and the local soil conditions. The effect of earthquakes on the pipeline is multifaceted. The shaking from the earthquake induces additional stress into the pipe and additional forces into the anchors in the above-ground structures. In addition, the earthquake waves traveling through the ground impose bending, tension, and compression stresses in buried pipe. Shaking of the ground can cause liquefaction or compaction of some granular materials. The ground accelerations during an earthquake also add to the gravity and ground-water seepage forces, which contribute to slope failures. The shaking of the ground also causes dynamic movements in the above-ground pipe and supports. Shaking perpendicular to the pipe causes the pipe to sway back and forth, thereby inducing bending stresses in the pipe between anchor supports. In addition, the longitudinal shaking of the pipe induces additional forces on the anchors. The stresses and forces become greater as the slope along the pipeline becomes greater. The traveling seismic wave will induce stresses within the buried pipeline as it moves with the ground. The pipe though is sufficiently flexible in bending to accommodate the large radius of curvature that the ground movements will produce; thus, the induced bending stresses will be quite small. For example, the curvature of the ground caused by an earthquake is approximately the ratio of the maximum ground acceleration to the square of the wave propagation velocity of the surface waves (Newmark 1970). Suppose during a severe earthquake the ground acceleration has a value of 0.33g while the surface wave velocity is 760 m/s (2,500 ft/s). The ground curvature will be of the order of 0.0000016 ft1 and the induced bending stress in a 48 inches diameter pipe would be approximately 100 psi, which is negligible. However, considerably larger compression and tensile stresses can be produced by direct ground strains during the earthquake since the pipe is very rigid with respect to longitudinal strains. At the surface of the soil, compressional waves are of negligible amplitude. However, the surface waves can have appreciable amplitudes. These waves will produce strains within the pipeline when their direction of propagation is at an angle to the pipeline. The maximum effect in the longitudinal direction of the pipe occurs when the wave is propagating at an angle of 458 to it, with shearing motion occurring in a direction at right angles to the propagation direction. Under these conditions the longitudinal strain in the pipe is approximately given by "L ¼

maximum ground velocity 2 wave propagation velocity

For a pipe velocity of say 3 ft/s, and a wave velocity of 2,500 ft/s the longitudinal strain in the pipe will be 0.0006, which corresponds to a longitudinal stress of 18000 psi. In reality the pipe will not move entirely in sympathy with the soil, that is the soil in all likelihood will move faster than the pipe, and hence the longitudinal stress calculated above will be conservative. Nevertheless, it must be included in addition to other effects that cause stresses in the pipe in order to ensure its structural adequacy. A reasonable criteria for permissible deformation to avoid rupture is to limit strain to 2% at any section except at stress concentrations where it could double.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

353

Seismic liquefaction: This occurs most commonly in fine-grained loose granular materials that are saturated. In this situation, the grains of soil are loosely stacked and all of the void spaces are filled with water. Upon occurrence of a seismic event, shaking causes the grains of soil to lose contact in an attempt to densify. During that period of time when the water is attempting to drain out so as to allow the densification of the soil grains, the soil mass takes on the characteristics of a dense viscous liquid. When the soil at the base of a slope liquefies the slope will become unstable, and in places where this has the potential to occur, the pipeline should either be rerouted if possible, or the soil suitably stabilized to reduce the risk of slumping. With above-ground piping the dynamic motion is applied to the base of the anchor blocks and supports and hence their flexibility and freedom to rotate or tilt must be considered. The ground motion can be expressed either as a time history that enables maximum accelerations and velocities to be determined or as response spectra. This information, in either form, can be used as the forcing function in a dynamic analysis of a finite-element representation of the above-ground pipework. Finally, consideration must also be given, for both buried and above-ground pipelines, to the relative motion at faults crossing the pipeline. It is not uncommon to have vertical or horizontal displacements of several feet where faulting occurs. These of themselves will not cause the pipeline to rupture (Dykes 1996) if it has been designed to accommodate such movements. Relative movement of 4 to 5 feet can be sustained without failure by a properly supported aboveground pipeline, although one or two supports may lose contact with the pipe. With buried pipelines such displacements might cause severe distortions or misalignment but not necessarily rupture or collapse. Very useful guidance for the seismic design of water pipelines and hydrocarbon pipelines may be found respectively in the American Lifelines Alliance (2005) and Honegger (2005).

Reliability-Based Design The purpose of mechanical engineering design is to ensure the safety and performance of a given pipeline, over a given period of time and under a specified loading condition. Once it is accepted that the loading and the structural strength of the pipe are known only in an approximate manner, it becomes clear that absolute safety is an untenable and impractical objective because of the number of uncertainties involved. These uncertainties may be due to randomness of loadings (both internal and external to the pipe), simplifying assumptions in the strength analysis, material properties, dimensions, etc. (Guedes 1997). However, by expressing these uncertainties in statistical (probabilistic) terms, a rational measurement of safety can be obtained from the estimated probability that some predetermined failure criterion has been exceeded (that is, some prescribed limiting condition for the pipe has been violated). In this manner we can limit the risk of unacceptable consequences. The major benefit of a reliability-based design approach is that the designer can create a pipeline structure that is both efficient and safe to the level specified. Currently five different pipeline codes permit the use of probabalistic approach to design, namely: Norsok & DNV(2002) CSA Z662-07 NEN 3650 prEN 1594, Annex G ISB 16708/13623

— Norway/Offshore — Canada — Netherlands — Europe (preliminary)

In order to better understand the discussion of reliability-based design later in the chapter, a few concepts will be outlined and some terminology introduced at this point.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

363

TABLE 7-11. Corresponding values of the failure probability Pf and the reliability index Pf

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05

0.000 0.253 0.524 0.842 1.282 1.645

Pf 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.001

1.751 1.881 2.054 2.326 2.576 3.090

Pf 4

10 105 106 107 108 109

3.719 4.265 4.753 5.199 5.612 5.998

Having determined a target reliability index say = 3.719 with a corresponding probability of failure of 104, the necessary values of the particular factors are found by the trial-and-error-loop depicted in Figure 7-22.

VALVE ASSEMBLIES Block Valves Purpose Block valve assemblies are used to isolate sections of mainline or long laterals when isolation is required in the event of a line break or if maintenance in a section of the line is necessary. Since their fuction is to provide a leak tight seal, it is important that they do not experience undue deflection. For this reason, they are substantially stiffer than the adjacent pipe and their stress levels are about half of the pipe. Required Components The following are the main components required for a block valve assembly: p A gate or ball valve the size of the mainline to allow passage of pigs. p Two blowdowns (gas only), either remote from or directly connected to the mainline, interconnected for equalizing the pressure on both sides of the block valve. p A riser on each side of the block valve to provide a power supply for a hydraulic/ pneumatic operator, or for taking fluid samples, connecting pressure gauges or performing flow tests. Location Code requirements for maximum block valve spacing vary with class location as shown in Table 7-12: Ease of access and site conditions should always be evaluated when selecting a location for a valve assembly. A detailed review of valve location requirements and need for valve automation to reduce oil spill in the event of a rupture in liquid lines is given by Mohitpour et al. (2003).

Side Valves Purpose The side valve assembly is required to isolate a lateral from the mainline in situations where a line break may occur or when maintenance of the lateral may be necessary.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

355

Equation (7-72) is generalized in the codes to take account of a number of other factors including a safety class factor, so that, for example, in the Canadian Limits States Design approach (CSA Z662-07), one finds: ; R G G þ Q Q þ E E þ A A

ð7 73Þ

; = resistance (strength) partial safety factor (0.9) R = characteristic resistance or strength = safety class factor G, Q, E, A = load partial safety factors for G, Q, E, and A load effects G, Q, E, A = permanent, operational, environmental, and accidental load effects respectively.

Where

Figure 7-18 depicts the limit states design methodology used in the Canadian Code (Appendix C of CSA Z662-07). The safety class factor is given in Table 7-8 and the partial load factors in Table 7-9. Safety class factors are related to the consequence of failure or human exposure to the hazard presented. Their various values are set to ensure that higher consequence failures have a lower probability of occurrence. For this reason the class factors are based upon both the location of the pipeline and its contents. The safety class factor can therefore vary along the length of the pipeline. Zimmerman et al., 1996 in a discussion of CSA Z–662 Appendix C presents in pictorial form (Figure 7-19) a possible relationship between safety class factor, human exposure, and

Figure 7-18.

LSD method [Ref CSA Z662, 2007]

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

356

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach TABLE 7-8. Safety class factors for ultimate limit states (Ref CSA Z662, 2007) Class Location 1 2 3 4

Gas Sour Service

Gas (non-sour)

HVP and CO2

LVP

1.1 1.3 1.6 2.0

1.0 1.1 1.4 1.8

1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

target values of annual reliability. Similarly Sotberg et al. (1997) have related acceptable failure probabilities to safety classes and the various generic types of limit states discussed next. In order to perform a structural reliability analysis, a mathematical model relating the load and resistance needs to be devised. This relationship is expressed in the form of a limitstate function, which can be theoretical, semiempirical, or fully empirical in nature. It does however predict the onset of failure of the pipeline. For pipelines, limit states are defined in accordance with three specific design requirements (Dinovitzer et al. 1999): The ultimate limit state The serviceability limit state The service limit state The ultimate limit state (ULS) is the state at which the pipe cannot contain the fluid it is carrying. This limit state clearly has safety and environmental implications. Examples of this limit state are leaks and ruptures (bursting). The ultimate limit state is generally associated with failure modes involving defects. The serviceability limit state (SLS) is the state at which the pipeline no longer meets the full design requirements but is still able to contain the fluid. In short, it is not fit for purpose, e.g., it cannot pass sufficient fluid/inline maintenance inspection tools. This limit state has no direct safety or environmental implications. Examples of this limit state include permanent deformation due to denting or yielding. The serviceability limit state is generally associated with failure modes of defect free pipe. The service limit states are those that develop slowly during the operating life of the structure, such as fatigue failure. Limit states design requires that all potential failure modes be investigated, though in the case of pipeline design it is possible to conceive of some limit states where the state of knowledge is so incomplete (e.g., stress corrosion cracking) that they are currently not suited for inclusion in such a design format. Table 7-10 contains a list of pertinent pipeline design limit states, the first of which, radial yielding, will be used as an example of the LRFD approach.

TABLE 7-9. Load and resistance factor values of (Ref CSA Z662, 2007) Appendix C Load Factors Q Load Combinations ULS ULS ULS ULS SLS

1: 2: 3: 4:

Max operating Max environmental Accidental Fatigue

G

Pressure

Other

E

A

1.25 1.05 1.0 1.0 1.0

1.13 1.05 1.0 1.0 1.0

1.25 1.05 1.0 1.0 1.0

1.07 1.35 0 1.0 1.0

0 0 1.0 0 0

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-19.

A

357

Safety class factor related to target annual reliability [Zimmerman et al., 1996]

Example: The limit state function Z for radial yielding can be expressed explicitly in terms of the four basic quantities D, t, P, and Sy as: Z ¼ Sy

PD 0 is denoted the safe region. The surface defined by Z = 0 is referred to as the failure surface or failure boundary. Introducing the quantity SH = PD/2t, that is the applied hoop stress, the failure function can be rewritten as: Z ð S y ; SH Þ ¼ SH Sy

ð7 75Þ

The problem is now reduced to two quantities, one describing the load (SH) and the other representing the pipe strength or resistance (Sy). A pictorial representation of the concept of the failure region, failure surface, and safe region is given in Figure 7-20. Both the stress caused by the applied load SH and the pipe strength Sy in Equation (7-75) are represented by statistical distributions. The probability density function (PDF) for the yield strength is found by a statistical analysis of measured test values from pipe mill certification records. Similarly, the mean value and variability of the wall thickness and diameter are found from pipe delivery records. Since the pipe is

Figure 7-20.

Pictorial definition of limit sate concept

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

359

made to a specification this limits the amount of variability present in the delivered pipe. In Level 1, load resistance factored design terms, the limit state described in Equation (7-74) can be written as Q SH y Sy

ð7 76Þ

The interplay between the load [the left-hand side of Equation (7-76)] and resistance is shown in Figure 7-21. By altering the values of / , the amount of overlap of the tails of the two distributions can be altered. As will be described later in the description of the level 2 methods of analysis, the convolution integral of the joint probability density functions in these overlapping tails is directly related to the probability of failure. The choice of partial load factors in the LRFD approach should be such as to be in accord with previous engineering experience. In the case of radial yielding, we know from a deterministic analysis (working stress design) that: PD 0:8 Sy 2t while from Equation (7-76) the LRFD format is Q

Figures 7-21.

PD Sy 2t

Partial factors in LSD

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 77Þ

360

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Since the partial safety factor in the Canadian Code is 0.9 and for nonsour gas in a class location 1 the safety class factor is 1.0 (from Table 7-8), it follows that:

¼ 0:8 Q or Q ¼

0:9 ¼ ¼ 1:13 0:8 0:8 1

which is the partial load factor found in Table 7-9. for the ultimate limit state due to pressure. Calibrating LRFD Partial Load Factors The use of the LRFD approach to pipeline design enables the designer to include probabilistic information without having to be deeply versed in probability theory. To do so with confidence though means that the various partial safety factors contained in Tables 7-8 and Table 7-9 have to be determined such that their use does not lead to designs that are drastically different from existing general practice. The calibration of the partial factors to ensure predetermined probabilities of failure is performed using Level 2/Level 3 methods and follows the steps outlined in Figure 7-22. It will be sufficient here to limit the argument

Figure 7-22.

Flowchart for selection of partial safety factors of a probability-based design code

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

361

to the Level 2 approach, though the interested reader is referred to Thoft-Christensen and Baker (1982), Chen and Nessim (1994), and Ellinas et al. (1986) for a description of the Level 3 approach. Level 2 Method The previous example on radial yielding can be written in more general terms as follows. Suppose that the random loading in the pipe is denoted by L and its resistance or capacity is denoted by R, then the safety margin Z of the pipe is defined as: Z ¼RL

ð7 78Þ

Since R and L are random variables, Z must also be a random variable with a corresponding probability density function fZ(z). In this case, and as shown in Figure 7-20, failure is clearly the event (Z0), so the probability of failure is: Pf ¼

Z0

fz ð zÞdz ¼ Fzð0Þ

ð7 79Þ

1

Graphically, this is represented by the area under fZ (z) to the left of 0, as shown in Figure 7-23. If R and L are assumed to be normally distributed with mean values R and L, respectively, and variances Z2 and R2, then the function Z = RL is also normal, based on

Figure 7-23.

Distribution of safety margin

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

362

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach the assumption of independence. Fz(0) is the value of the cumulative density function (cdf ) corresponding to Z = 0. Thus for normal distributions one can write: 2

2

2

Z ¼ R L and Z ¼ R þ L Furthermore, the standardized safety margin (Z - z)/Z is normally distributed with a zero mean and a standard deviation equal to one. The probability of failure is computed as follows: Pf ¼ FZ ð0Þ ¼ ðz =Z Þ where is the standard normal CDF. It can be seen that the probability of failure is a function of the ratio: = Z/Z, which is usually called the Cornell safety index. Thus R L ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 2 2 R þ L Hence if one knows these quantities for the load and resistance distributions, then the safety index is readily found. For lognormal quantities (which often are used to describe the variables that make up L and R), it is easier to consider Z ¼ R=L

ð7 80Þ

Let the means and coefficients of variation be denoted R, L and R, L, respectively, where R = R/L, that is the ratio of the mean value and the standard deviation of the distribution. Then the logarithm of Z is normally distributed with a mean and variance equal to 8 0:5 9 > > 2 > > =

> > > ; : L 1 þ 2 R and 2 2 2 ‘nZ ¼ ‘n 1 þ R 1 þ L

ð7 82Þ

Consequently, the probability of failure is equal to Pf ¼ Prob.ðR=L < 1Þ ¼ Prob.ð‘nZ < 0Þ

ð7 83Þ

which is the value of the normal cumulative frequency distribution at ‘nZ=0. The normal and log normal distributions adequately describe the variability in the parameters of interest in pipeline design so that Equations (7-78) and (7-83) are most often used to determine the probability that a limit state has been violated, i.e., the probability of failure. The safety or reliability index and the probability of failure are uniquely related and since is a quantity defining the safety of the pipeline structure, it is often used as the target measure of structural performance. Table 7-11 provides some corresponding values of Pf and , other values may be found from the standard table for the cumulative normal distribution.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

363

TABLE 7-11. Corresponding values of the failure probability Pf and the reliability index Pf

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05

0.000 0.253 0.524 0.842 1.282 1.645

Pf 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.001

1.751 1.881 2.054 2.326 2.576 3.090

Pf 4

10 105 106 107 108 109

3.719 4.265 4.753 5.199 5.612 5.998

Having determined a target reliability index say = 3.719 with a corresponding probability of failure of 104, the necessary values of the particular factors are found by the trial-and-error-loop depicted in Figure 7-22.

VALVE ASSEMBLIES Block Valves Purpose Block valve assemblies are used to isolate sections of mainline or long laterals when isolation is required in the event of a line break or if maintenance in a section of the line is necessary. Since their fuction is to provide a leak tight seal, it is important that they do not experience undue deflection. For this reason, they are substantially stiffer than the adjacent pipe and their stress levels are about half of the pipe. Required Components The following are the main components required for a block valve assembly: p A gate or ball valve the size of the mainline to allow passage of pigs. p Two blowdowns (gas only), either remote from or directly connected to the mainline, interconnected for equalizing the pressure on both sides of the block valve. p A riser on each side of the block valve to provide a power supply for a hydraulic/ pneumatic operator, or for taking fluid samples, connecting pressure gauges or performing flow tests. Location Code requirements for maximum block valve spacing vary with class location as shown in Table 7-12: Ease of access and site conditions should always be evaluated when selecting a location for a valve assembly. A detailed review of valve location requirements and need for valve automation to reduce oil spill in the event of a rupture in liquid lines is given by Mohitpour et al. (2003).

Side Valves Purpose The side valve assembly is required to isolate a lateral from the mainline in situations where a line break may occur or when maintenance of the lateral may be necessary.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

364

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach TABLE 7-12. Code requirements for maximum block valve spacing (Ref CSA Z662, 2007 and ASME B31.8, 2003) CAN/CSA Z662 Class Location

Gas Pipelines

HVP Pipelines

LVP Pipelines

1 2 3 4

NR 25 13 8

NR 15 15 15

NR NR NR NR

ANSI B31.4

ANSI B31.8

12 12 12 12

32 24 16 8

km km km km

km km km km

Required Components A side valve assembly consists of the following components: p p p p p

A gate or ball valve the size of the lateral A check valve and bypass line (for receipt laterals) A blowdown with appropriate valving (gas only) A flange and insulation set to separate the lateral electrically from the mainline Test leads from the mainline and the lateral

Note that the purpose of a check valve in the assembly is to prevent reverse flow. It will also prevent flow from the mainline into the inflowing lateral when the pressure in the lateral is less than that in the mainline. Check valves are not required on sales (offtake) laterals. Location These assemblies are located on the lateral immediately adjacent to the mainline.

Compressor Station Tie-Ins Purpose The main purpose of compressor station tie-ins is to direct the flow either through the compressor station (by opening the side valves and closing the block valve) or past the station (by closing the side valves and opening the block valve). These valves allow the station to be isolated (in an emergency or for maintenance) without stopping the flow of fluids. Required Components The main components required for side valves and a block valve for a compressor station are: p A mainline block valve p A suction and a discharge valve (ball or gate) p Power operators, normally tied into the station automation

Valve Operators Operators are chosen according to ease of operation and economics. Typical operator configurations include: p Direct handwheel or wrench-operated valves for NPS 4 valves and smaller p Handwheel gear -operated for NPS 6 to NPS 12 valves

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

365

p Power operators for all NPS 16 valves and larger, and for smaller valves in meter and compressor stations that are designed for remote or automatically controlled operation Possible modes of operation include: p Pneumatic controls with a choice of high pressure, low pressure or rate of pressure drop line break controls p Remote electronic signal operation, is generally used: 1. To shut-in a meter station when sour gas is detected. 2. When a meter station is remotely operated by a central gas control facility.

Blowdowns (Gas Only) Blowdowns are used to vent gas to atmosphere, to expel air during purging, and to hook up a pull-down compressor (used to conserve the gas rather than venting to atmosphere). When locating a valve assembly with a blowdown, it is important to choose an area that has no buildings immediately downwind, contains no source for igniting vapours, and is easily accessible. All blowdowns and valve assemblies should be enclosed in a fenced area to protect them from vandalism or damage. The blowdown size is governed by the time available to depressurize the section of line. Operation requirements for the particular line will govern the time requirements. Common practice involves a 30–60 minute timeline when two blowdowns are open on an isolated section. There are numerous methods of calculating blowdown sizes. A quick formula for calculating the blowdown time is: 1=3

Tm ¼ where

1=2

0:0588P1 G d

2

D LFc

2

Tm = blowdown time, minutes P1 = initial trunkline pressure, psig G = specific gravity of gas D = ID of trunkline, inches L = length of trunkline being blown down, miles d = ID of blowdown stack, inches Fc = choke factor: p p p p p

ideal nozzle = 1.0 full-port gate valve = 1.6 reduced port gate valve = 1.8 regular plug valve = 2.0 Venturi plug valve = 3.2.

A better formulation for blowdown time calculation or blowdown facilities sizing is provided in the following section.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

366

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Blowdown Analysis The nomenclature used herein is as follows: A = cross-sectional flow area, square inches Av = smallest cross-sectional area of blowdown assembly (including valve, riser, etc.), square inches Cd = coefficient of discharge to convert A to effective flow area, dimensionless gc = acceleration of gravity, 32.2, ft/s2 k = ratio of specific heats, Cp/Cv, dimensionless m = mass, lb M = molecular weight P = pressure of internal gas in system being blown down, psia R = gas constant, 1,545 ft lb/lb mol 8R Sg = specific gravity of gas, dimensionless T = temperature of gas in system being blown down, 8R t = blowdown time, sec. u = point velocity, ft/sec. V = system volume involved in blowdown, cu. ft. W = mass flow rate out of system during blowdown, lb./s. Z = compressibility factor of gas, dimensionless = density, lb./cu. ft. s = property at point where gas reaches sonic velocity 1 = initial system condition for time interval being considered 2 = final system condition for time interval being considered. The following analysis develops a blowdown time formulation for blowing down a section of gas pipeline with volume V (Figure 7-24).

Z

Figure 7-24.

Blowdown pressure-time computation

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

367

Mass flow rate: W ¼ s As u ¼ s Cd Av u

ð7 84Þ

From Real Gas law of thermodynamics: PV ¼ m Z R T ;P ¼ m Z RT V P ¼ Z R T or ¼ P ZRT

ð7 85Þ

Therefore, the mass flow rate is: W ¼ where

Ps Cd Av Vs Z s R Ts

ð7 86Þ

Vs = sonic velocity

As long as the initial pressure is much higher than atmospheric pressure, critical flow can be assumed to exist through the blowdown valve so that pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð7 87Þ Vs ¼ gc k Zs R Ts Substituting for Vs in Equation (7-86): W ¼

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ Ps Cd Av gc k Zs R Ts Zs R Ts

but Zs Ts ¼ ZT

Figure 7-25.

2 kþ1

Gate valve and ball valve [Courtesy Daniel Industries Canada]

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 88Þ

386

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-39.

Free body of swamp weight spacing formula

Assuming the use of wood lagging, the maximum allowable river weight spacing is calculated from the following design formula:

L¼

where

Mc g Bc þ ðBw Mw gÞR Bp Mp g þ Bw Mw g

ð7 97Þ

L = center-to-center weight spacing, m Mc = mass of concrete weight, kg Bc = buoyant force due to fluid displaced by weight, N Bp = buoyant force per unit length of pipe due to fluid displaced by pipe, N/m Mp = mass per unit length of steel pipe, kg/m Mw = mass per unit length of wood lagging, kg/m Bw = buoyant force per unit length of wood lagging due to fluid displaced by wood lagging, N/m g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 R = concrete weight length, m. Wp = weight per unit length of pipe Ww = weight per unit length of wood Wc = weight of concrete.

See Figures 7-40 and 7-41, as well as the Table 7-15, for further details. To derive the formula [Equation (7-97)] for the spacing of river weight consider the system equilibrium as shown in Figure 7-41. ðWp Bp ÞL þ ðWc Bc Þ þ ðWw Bw ÞðL RÞ ¼ 0 Wc Bc þ ðBw Ww ÞR ¼ ðBp Wp þ Bw Ww ÞL

Therefore: L¼

Wc Bc þ ðBw Ww ÞR Bp Wp þ Bw Ww

ð7 98Þ

or Lmax ¼

Mc g Bc þ ðBw Mw g ÞR Bp Mp g þ Bw Mw g

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 99Þ

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

369

Assume the expression in square brackets = X, then dt = V/PXdP. If the adiabatic index k = Cp/Cv = 1.13 (average value for natural gas), then the bracketed term X can be written as: sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ZT X ¼ 0:182 Cd Av Sg Integrating dt ¼

ð7 93Þ

VdP PX

Rt

R P2 dp dt ¼ V P X 1 P t ¼ V ln P2 þ C X P1 at t = 0, P1 ¼ P2 ; ;C ¼ 0 so 3 rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ 5:5 V ft Sg P2 ðpsiÞ P V 2 ln (seconds) t = ln ¼ P1 X P1 Av ðsq:inÞCd ZT O

ð7 94Þ

Note Sg ¼

M gas M air

Problem: Determine the blowdown stack size required to evacuate/blowdown in one hour a section of NPS 36 Grade 483 ( 70) pipeline designed to ANSI 600# flange rating. The line will be normally operating at 7,000 kPa (1,000 psi) and is designed for class 1 location (i.e., distance between blowdown valves will be 32 km). The following gas composition is applicable: p p p p p p p

Methane — 96.8% Ethane — 1.1% Propane — 0.0% Nitrogen — 2.0% Carbon dioxide — 0.01% Assumption: Cd = 0.6 Pipeline gas temperature = ground temperature = 208C

Valve Selection for Pipeline Application Mainline isolation valves fulfill three basic functions: sectionalizing, diverting, and segregating. Sectionalizing, or dividing up the pipeline into smaller segments that can be isolated, is required to minimize and contain the environmental effects of a line rupture. Where pipelines are interconnected, valves are required to divert product flow to meet production needs. Finally, valves provide the means to segregate or isolate individual process equipment such as scraper traps and, on a broader level, entire plants for safety, maintenance, or operating reasons. Mainline

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

370

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach valves must be of a through-conduit or through-bore design to accommodate the scrapers. Gate and ball valves are generally utilized for fluid transmission pipeline applications (Figure 7-32). There is no single valve and actuator combination that is correct for every pipeline or every application. Variables that must be considered and specifically evaluated for each valve installation include the following: p p p p p p p p p p

Operating characteristics Function Location Fluid service Materials options Space available Maintenance Repair capability Delivery schedule Costs.

Operating Characteristics The majority of regular slab-gate and ball valves are specified with soft seats that are capable of providing a bubble-tight shutoff. Their temperature limit is generally around 1308C. Both types of valves have two seats and are considered to be ‘‘double block and bleed’’ by the loose definition that their tightness can be verified by opening the vent between the seats. Metal-seated valves are also available for use in abrasive/high temperature applications. In a ball valve, the ball is mounted on fixed trunnions and the seats are free to move. At very low pressures, the spring force provides the seal and as line pressure increases it forces the seat against the ball proportionally. In most designs, if the upstream seat leaks, the downstream seat is pushed back by line pressure and fluid leaks past the valve. In a few designs, line pressure is also made to act on the downstream seat, thus providing a dual seating capability. However, a body relief valve must be provided to protect against overpressuring. In the gate valve, seats, as well as the gate are free to move. Both seats can seal at the same time because the upstream seat seals against the gate and the gate seals against the downstream seal. If the upstream seat leaks, there is a possibility that the downstream seat may hold. Also, because line pressure acts on the entire exposed gate area, the sealing load is much higher than when compared to a ball valve. Function and Location Most pipeline valves are remotely located and therefore are either manually operated or fluid powered. Generally, the geared handwheel is the most cost-effective. Valves that are infrequently operated and those that do not need to be operated immediately or at high speed are in this category. The use of a gate valve is also recommended in low usage situations in order to utilize cheaper assets for large valves; in situations where high speed operation is essential, high gear ratios are required. In these cases, a two-speed gearbox and a portable driver such as a small gasoline engine are utilized for this purpose. Due to their tight shutoff capabilities, the gate and ball valve are employed as tie-in hot tap isolation valves when additional interconnections have to be made to an existing pipeline.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

371

Fluid Service and Materials Options There is no evidence to show that either type of valve has an advantage in any particular fluid service. Either type should perform well in gas or liquid applications. Both gate and ball valves are available in various materials to suit the service conditions. For relatively noncorrosive applications, a carbon steel body with a nickel-plated trim are used. For medium corrosive services, stainless steels or alloy trims in the full solid form or as overlays are generally specified. Space Availability Due to its greater height, the gate valve is at a distinct disadvantage in locations where above-ground space is limited or in buried applications where construction costs are at a premium. In above-ground applications, the gate valve will require more elaborate access platforms. If the valve is to be buried, the longer length of the gate valve below the bottom of the pipe means that additional excavation is needed in the immediate area of the valve. Maintenance A major problem encountered with ball vales is spring and behind-the-seat body corrosion. Its primary cause is the lack of proper draining during the initial phases of operation or subsequent to hydrotesting. This usually results in sluggish operation of the valve. In some cases, corrosion has caused the valve to simply ‘‘freeze.’’ The gate valve is usually prone to operational problems due to an accumulation of particulates in the cavity. This occurs if the valve is not properly seated in the fully open or fully closed position for long periods of time. The debris will tend to solidify and thus prevent the gate from closing fully. Serious damage may result if the operator overrides the actuator limit switches or exerts excessive force on the handwheel. Regular draining is required to remove debris if such occurrences are frequent. Although not always successful, the best results can be obtained by flushing the cavity through two drain ports located 180 degrees apart. A problem experienced in sandy environments is seizing between the stem nut and the stem due to entrapment of wind-borne matter when the stem is exposed. Stems must be adequately protected and cleaned on a regular basis to prevent this occurrence. Actuator maintenance checklists should address the following: p p p p p p

Verification of adequate hydraulic fluid levels Lubrication Pneumatic supply Absence of leaks Corrosion of electrical terminations and contacts Mechanical linkage problems

Repair Capability While all gate valves are considered to be repairable in-place, this is only true for the top entry style ball valve. The split-body and all-welded-body ball valves must be removed from the line for repair of internals. Repair of the gate, however, is much simpler than repairing the ball because of its shape. This is a major consideration in remote areas or in locations where sophisticated machining facilities are unavailable and the ball can only be temporarily patched. Delivery and Costs Given the infrequent rate of failure of a ball valve the extra expense of a split body is rarely justified. Little difference is expected in delivery times between the gate and ball valves. Valve costs are also similar. Actuator cost also forms a small percentage of the valve cost.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

372

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach TABLE 7-13. Sealing characteristics: gate valves versus ball valves Factor Sealing Infrequent operation Fail-safe Hot tap isolation High speed Repairability Cost Space limitations Hydraulically operated

Gate Valve B B

B B

Ball Valve

B B B B B

Note: B indicates the better choice

Selection of the type of actuator will influence the total cost of the valve, since the more complex actuators cost proportionally more. Table 7-13 provides a general guideline when deciding which type of valve to buy for a project.

SCRAPER TRAPS Scrapers, commonly referred to as pigs, are used in the daily operation and construction of pipelines. They are used for a variety of reasons: p To clean a pipeline, thereby increasing the line’s efficiency. p To gauge or survey any objectionable restrictions or pipe deformations such as dents and buckles. p To remove water after hydrostatic testing of newly constructed pipelines. p To separate product batches. p To inspect the pipeline internally, to detect any loss-of-metal defects (caused by internal or external corrosion). Pig traps should be designed and installed to meet the requirements of the intended usages, such as cleaning or inspection. The relevant design codes must be followed to ensure overall compatibility and safety. The manufacturer should be consulted for any dimensional and configurational requirements for the trap.

Location There is currently no formula for determining the maximum length of a pig run or the location of pig traps. The location of an intermediate pig launch and receipt assembly depends upon the quality of the pig, the quality of construction, the pig velocity, the pig design, the interior line conditions (rough, semirough, smooth), and the medium in which the pig is running. However, there are some general guidelines (Table 7-14). The recommended spacing between traps is not necessarily the maximum distance that a pig may travel in a single run. This will vary considerably from pig to pig, and from pipeline to pipeline.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

373

TABLE 7-14. Guidelines for choosing pig trap locations (Ref ASME/ANSI B31.8, 1993) Pipeline Category Newly constructed gas lines Newly constructed product lines Newly constructed oil lines

Recommended Spacing (km) 100–200 200–300 300–500

Major Components of Scraper Trap Assembly The major components of a scraper trap assembly (Figure 7-26) include: p p p p p p p p p

Pig barrel and end closure Isolation valve Kickoff valve Bypass valve Mainline isolation valve (on mainline bypass) Blowdown stack and valve (for gas service only) Pig barrel drain valve (mainly for liquids) Pipe bends leading to the assembly Anchors and supports.

Pig Barrel and End Closure A pig launch barrel (Figure 7-27) should be at least 1½ times as long as the longest pig (cleaning or pig inspection). An exception to this rule would be for products lines where it is necessary to launch two or more pigs in succession to separate buffer batches (batching pig). The launch barrel diameter should be one to two NPS sizes larger than the line pipe. The launch barrel must be equipped with connections (usually flanged) for the kickoff line and, if drainage is required, drain valves. The kickoff connection should be located on the

Figure 7-26.

Scraper launcher/receiver

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

374

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-27.

Typical pig launcher

side of the trap close to the closure end. The drain outlets should be located on the bottom of the barrel, also close to the end closure. For gas lines, a blowdown stack and valve are required. Welded connections for gauging, purging, and blowdown should be included on the barrel and located on the top, close to the end closure. A pig signal detector should be installed downstream from the launcher to indicate the passage of the pig into the main line. Most operating companies prefer the use of seamless pipe for the scraper barrel. Low temperature materials must be used. Welds must be thermal stress relieved for low ambient temperature operation. The pig receipt barrel should be at least 2½ times as long as the longest pig. Consideration must be given to the possibility of running long inspection pigs or, for product lines, a series of pigs for batching. When cleaning pigs are considered, attention must be given to the amount of debris expected. The receipt barrel must be equipped with flanged connections for a bypass line and drainage outlets. The bypass connection should be located near the mainline connection. The drain outlets should be located near the end closure. The barrel diameter should be one to two NPS larger than the line pipe. Welded connections should be provided for gauging, purging, and blowdown. Seamless material is recommended. Low temperature materials and thermal stress-relief welds are required for low ambient temperature applications. The receipt barrel should also contain a connection for a pig passage indicator. This connection should be located just upstream of the reducer (Figure 7-28).

Figure 7-28.

Typical pig receiver

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

375

A quick open end closure will facilitate easy access. A typical end closure is shown in Figure 7-29. Quick open closures should come equipped with a safety pressure locking device to prevent access while the barrel is under pressure. Isolation Valve A valve is required to isolate the scraper barrel from the main pipeline. The isolation valve should be a double block and bleed valve. This will ensure a bubble-tight seal to effectively isolate the trap from the mainline prior to opening the end closure. The valve must be a fullbore, through-conduit type to ensure pig passage. The valve trim and body should be designed for the intended service and ambient temperature conditions. Depending on the size of the valve, the valve operator can be manually operated or equipped with a power operator. The requirement for automated valve operation will depend on the operating and control requirements. An insulated flange set is usually installed on the mainline side of the valve to electrically separate the mainline from the scraper barrel and valve (cathodic protection). Kickoff Valve The kickoff valve is used to launch the pig. The valve should be between 1/4 and 1/2 of the line size. Depending on the valve size, it can be either a bevel-geared or vertical-stem type. Normally, this valve is manually controlled to launch the pig slowly into the mainline. The valve should have double block and bleed features. A reduced port valve is adequate. The valve body and trim must be compatible with the intended service and ambient temperature conditions. Bypass Valve and Line The bypass valve is identical to the kickoff valve with the exception that it is connected to the receipt barrel at a point near the reducer or valve end of the barrel. This location allows the pig to pass the isolation valve and then decreases the flow behind the pig to reduce its speed once it enters the trap. Mainline Isolation Valve In an emergency situation, the mainline isolation valve is used to isolate the upstream section of the mainline from the downstream section. Blowdown Stack and Valve A blowdown assembly is required for gas services only. The stack and the valve should be designed for low temperature construction. The blowdown size should be sized according to the formulae presented earlier in this chapter (Equation 7-94).

Figure 7-29.

Threaded closure with hinge

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

376

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Drain Valve Even though drain valves are mainly required for liquid pipelines, they are common in gas services as well. The valve size is usually NPS 2, although NPS 4 valves are found on larger diameter barrels. The materials and design must be compatible with the design and operation conditions set out for the barrel. Drain valves are located at the bottom of the barrel, and are usually piped to a tank or include connections for attachment to tanker trucks. Pipe Bends Leading to the Pig Trap Assembly The radius of the bend leading to the trap must meet the pig traverse requirements set out by the pig manufacturer. For normal scraper and batch pigs,a minimum radius equal to three times the pipe outside diameter is usually adequate. However, for electronic instrument pigs, a much longer bend radius may be required.

General Launching Procedures Launching Procedures — Gas The following procedure applies to gas kickoff service and the launching assembly shown in Figure 7-30. 1. The isolation valve and the kickoff valve must be closed. 2. Open the blowdown valve to vent pressure from the launcher. (WARNING: Do not attempt to open the end closure until the launcher is completely blown down to atmospheric pressure.) 3. Open the end closure and insert the pig until the front cup reaches the reducer and forms a tight fit against the reducer. 4. Close the end closure. 5. Open the kickoff valve slightly to purge air from launcher. 6. Close the blowdown valve and slowly bring the launcher up to line pressure. 7. Close the kickoff valve. (CAUTION: Pig damage can occur if the kickoff valve is not closed when the isolation valve is opened. The pig may try to leave the launcher before the isolation valve is fully opened.)

Figure 7-30.

Typical gas line launching trap

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

377

8. Open the isolation valve. 9. Open the kickoff valve. [NOTE: If the pig does not leave the launcher immediately, slowly close the mainline isolation valve (partially) until the pig does leave the launcher.] 10. Open the mainline isolation valve. 11. Close the kickoff and isolation valves. Launching Procedure — Liquid The following procedure applies to the liquid service launching shown in Figure 7-31. 1. The isolation valve and the kickoff valve must be closed. 2. Open the drain valve and the vent valve to allow liquid to drain from the launcher. (WARNING: Do not attempt to open the end closure until the launcher is empty and at atmospheric pressure.) 3. Open the end closure and insert the pig until the rear cup passes the kickoff line connection and the front cup of the pig fits tight against the reducer. 4. Close the end closure and drain valve. 5. Open the kickoff valve slightly to purge air from the launcher. 6. Close the vent valve and slowly bring the launcher to line pressure. 7. Close the kickoff valve. (CAUTION: Pig damage may occur if the kickoff valve is not closed when the isolation valve is opened. The pig may try to leave the launcher before the isolation valve is fully opened.) 8. Open the isolation valve. 9. Open the kickoff valve. 10. Slowly close the mainline isolation valve (partially) until the flow through the kickoff line forces the pig into the mainline. 11. Open the mainline isolation valve. 12. Close the isolation valve and the kickoff valve.

Figure 7-31.

Typical liquid line launching trap

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

378

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

General Procedures for Pig Receipt Receiving pigs are also different for liquid versus gas lines. Receiving Procedures — Gas The following procedure applies to the receiver shown in Figure 7-32: 1. The blowdown valve and end closure must be closed. 2. Before the pig arrives, open the bypass valve and then open the pig trap valve. (NOTE: If the pig does not enter the trap, slowly close the station suction valve until the pig is forced into the trap.) 3. Once the pig is in the trap, open the station suction valve. 4. Close the pig trap valve and bypass valve. 5. Open the blowdown valve to vent pressure from the receiver. (WARNING: Do not attempt to open end closure until receiver is completely blown down to atmospheric pressure.) 6. Open end closure and remove pig(s). (CAUTION: Some internal pipeline residues may smolder and ignite when exposed to the atmosphere. These residues should be buried or put in a pit where burning can be controlled.) 7. Close end closure. 8. Open bypass valve slightly to purge air from the barrel. 9. Close blowdown valve and slowly bring receiver up to line pressure. 10. Close bypass valve. (The bypass valve and trap valve may be opened at this time to be ready for the next pig.) Receiving Procedures — Liquid The following procedures apply to Figure 7-33: 1. Close the drain and vent valves and the end closure. Ensure the trap has been purged with air and filled with line fill.

Figure 7-32.

Typical pig-receiving gas-trap line

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-33.

A

379

Typical pig receiver for liquid lines

2. Open the bypass valve before the pig arrives, and then open the bypass valve, and then the pig trap valve. (NOTE: If the pig does not enter the trap, slowly close the station suction valve until the pig is forced into the trap.) 3. Once the pig is in the trap, open the station suction valve. 4. Close pig trap valve and bypass valve. 5. Open the drain valve and vent valve to allow liquid to drain from the receiver. (WARNING: Do not attempt to open the end closure until receiver is empty and at atmospheric pressure.) 6. Open the end closure and remove pig(s). 7. Close the end closure. 8. Close the drain line valve. 9. Open the bypass valve slightly to purge air from receiver. 10. Close the vent valve and slowly bring receiver to line pressure. 11. Close the bypass valve. (The bypass valve and trap valve may be opened at this time to be ready to receive the next pig.)

Valves and Operators As mentioned earlier, valves can be either gate or ball type. However, where it is necessary to open and close valves where there are high differential pressures across the valves, a ball-type valve should be used. Valves must be lubricated regularly to ensure quality performance. Lubrication every six months is common practice, but the frequency may be adjusted based on local operating experience. The selection of valve operators is based on ease and convenience of operations and economics. For manual valve operation, common practice is to operate valves of NPS 4 and smaller, via direct handwheel, and to operate NPS 6 and larger by means of handwheel gear.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

380

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Piping The choice of the steel grade and wall thickness of the pipe and barrel is based on many considerations, such as: p p p p p p

Availability of material Design pressure and combined stress requirement Adequate ring stiffness Design operating and ambient temperature Code requirements Economics

Coating Valve assemblies, valves, and piping must be properly primed and painted to meet operating and ambient temperature conditions. Gaps between mating flanges should be taped to prevent entry of any foreign materials and moisture.

BUOYANCY CONTROL Pipelines are subjected to buoyant forces when they encounter freestanding or flowing water, and when buried in saturated soils. The buoyant forces are counteracted by the addition of weight, such as concrete swamp weights(saddles), river weights (bolt-on) or continuous concrete coating. In this way, the pipe can be backfilled and kept in place once it has been installed. Two other methods that can be used to keep the pipe down are the installation of mechanical anchoring devices or backfilling and utilizing the mass of a select material to counteract the buoyant forces. The final selection of the type and extent of buoyancy control measures is usually made on a site-specific basis. For example, swamp weights are good for wet areas where the pipe will stay on or close to the bottom of the ditch and the weights will not slide off during installation. If the ditch is filled with water, a river weight or continuous concrete coating may be required to keep the pipe down. The choice between these two is usually based on which is the more economic. The required amount of weight, or the spacing of standard-size weights, is calculated by equating the forces due to the mass of the pipe and weights with the buoyant forces due to the fluid displaced by the pipe and weights. In this calculation, a factor of safety called a negative buoyancy factor is introduced to ensure that the pipe will stay down. Negative buoyancy factors between 5% and 20% are common, depending upon the fluid density of the soil/water mixture encountered and the construction methods used.

Methods of Buoyancy Control Buoyancy control may be achieved in three ways: (1) by a mechanical anchoring system, (2) by backfill, and (3) by a density anchoring system. Mechanical Anchors Mechanical anchors (Figure 7-33) are designed to maintain a minimum holddown force on the pipeline by utilizing the shear strength of the underlying soil. They consist of individual or pairs of anchors attached to the pipeline by holddown clamps or straps. A mechanical

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

381

anchor involves the use of a steel anchor rod with an auger at the lower tip. They are not commonly utilized for large-diameter pipelines. Backfill Backfill, using either native or borrowed select material for buoyancy control, relies on the mass of the backfill over the pipe to counteract the buoyancy forces. Native backfill may be considered if it consists of stable, ice-free soil that is capable of achieving a reasonable level of strength. If the native backfill is not adequate, select backfill can be used. Select backfill should be of coarse-grained, free-draining materials exhibiting sufficient shear strength when thawed or mixed with water. Although gravel is undoubtedly the best material, other materials such as a mixture of gravel, sand, clay, and silt can be used. The stability of the ditch wall is another important factor to consider in this method of buoyancy control. Unstable ditch walls will not provide sufficient support for the select backfill to keep it over the pipe. This method should not be used if the ditch contains water during backfilling. The ditch must be dewatered prior to and during the placement of any backfill. The backfill can then be placed in a controlled manner. This method can be used when a ditch is dry during construction but may be subjected to buoyant forces after backfilling is complete. Subsequent buoyant forces could be due to thawing, flooding, or a rising water table. Select backfill can then be used in place of weights in this situation. It can also be used in relatively impervious soils where the ditch excavation has penetrated below the water table. Density Anchors Density anchors are a system of weights added to the pipeline. The types of anchors are usually in the form of concrete and include swamp weights (saddle or set-on), river weights (bolt-on), and continuous concrete coating.

Figure 7-34.

Mechanical anchor

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

382

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Swamp weights (Figure 7-35) are shaped like an inverted ‘‘U’’ and are placed over the pipeline after the pipe is in the ditch. They are constructed by pouring concrete into prefabricated molds or forms and are reinforced with steel reinforcing bars or wire mesh. They can be manufactured at central batch sites or at a specific field site. The choice of location for manufacture depends primarily on the availability and proximity of materials and on transportation costs. Rockshield or felt lining is attached to the inside of the weight to prevent damage to the pipe coating. Lifting hooks are built into each weight for handling. Swamp weights are the most economical density anchor for pipelines primarily because they are the easiest to handle and install. They are usually used for small stream crossings, drainage courses, river floodplains, muskeg (bogs), and swamps. River weights (Figure 7-36) are constructed in two halves and are designed to be clamped to the pipe. High tensile corrosion-resistant steel bolts are used to fasten the two halves together. The weights are manufactured by pouring concrete into prefabricated molds or forms and are reinforced with steel wire mesh/reinforcing bars. River weights can be manufactured at central batch sites or at a specific field site. The choice of location depends primarily on the availability and proximity of materials and transportation costs. Lifting hooks are built into each weight for handling. As with swamp weights, the inside corners of the weight are chamfered and the inside of the weight is lined with rockshield or felt to prevent damage to the pipe coating. The ends are chamfered to prevent snagging in cases where the pipeline has to be pulled into place. Wood lagging and slats, strapped to the pipe along its length, are normally used between the river weights to prevent movement of the weights, thereby maintaining the required spacing and providing mechanical protection for the pipeline. If used, they should be taken into consideration in the spacing calculations because of their buoyant effect. River weights are used primarily at minor river and creek crossings (double-sag crossings) where the construction technique consists of welding up the pipeline in a staging area, installing the weights, and then walking the pipeline into place. For largediameter pipelines, river weights may be used in muskeg or swamp areas, or any other

Figure 7-35.

Swamp weight

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-36.

A

383

River weight

areas where swamp weights may have been proposed but cannot be used because the ditch water cannot be evacuated. Continuous concrete coating (Figure 7-37) consists of a coating that completely surrounds the pipe. It provides excellent mechanical protection for the pipeline, particularly in fast-flowing water or in rocky areas. It is reinforced with steel wire mesh or reinforcing bars. The concrete is usually applied by forming and pouring. The coating may be applied at a central batching plant or at a specific field site. The choice of location depends primarily on the availability of materials, transportation costs and portability of manufacturing equipment. Some of the other methods used to apply the concrete to the pipe include guniting, where the concrete is manually sprayed onto the pipe; impingement, where the concrete is sprayed onto the pipe as it is rotated past; and extrusion, where the concrete is applied to the pipe as the pipe passes through a machine. At the ends, where the joints are to be welded, the pipe is left bare for some distance, with reinforcement protruding from the concrete. After the sections are welded together, the reinforcement is extended across the bare areas and concrete is applied. Concrete coating is used for crossing the main active channels of major rivers where the pipeline installation will be performed by pulling. It is also used at large lakes and possibly in large floodplains, swamps, or bogs where the ditch is expected to be filled with water and cannot be dewatered.

Selection, Design, and Verification of Buoyancy Control Systems Final selection of the type and extent of buoyancy control measures should be made on a site-specific basis, taking the following into consideration: type of terrain, type of soil, ditch

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

384

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-37.

Continuous concrete coated pipe

conditions (dry or wet), construction season, cost (economics), availability of materials, access to site, ease of handling during transport and construction, and limitations of equipment. The following values are typically incorporated into design calculations of buoyancy control in Canada: p For river floodplains, small streams, drainage courses, swamp, muskeg, small lakes, and local depressions where water will be encountered in the ditch during construction: Negative buoyancy: 5% Fluid density: 1,040 kg/m3 p For main river channels and areas where flowing or moving water will be encountered during construction: Negative buoyancy: 10% Fluid density: 1,000 kg/m3 The maximum allowable swamp weight spacing is calculated from the following design formula: L¼ where

Mc g Bc Bp Mp g

ð7 95Þ

L = center-to-center weight spacing, m Mc = mass of concrete weight, kg Bc = buoyant force due to fluid displaced by weight, N Bp = buoyant force per unit length of pipe due to fluid displaced by pipe, N/m Mp = mass per unit length of steel pipe, kg/m g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2.

See Figures 7-38 and 7-39, as well as the following table, for further details. Wp = weight of pipe per unit length of pipe Wc = weight of concrete.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

385

For system equilibrium: ðWp Bp ÞL þ ðWc Bc Þ ¼ 0 ðMp g Bp ÞL þ ðMc g Bc Þ ¼ 0 Therefore: Lmax ¼

Mc g B c B p Mp g

ð7 96Þ

Note that the weight of the pipe corrosion coating has been considered negligible. The following considerations must be taken into account for typical swamp weight design: p The weights should not impose excessive stresses that could cause rolling or buckling of the pipe. p The center of gravity of the weights should be kept as low as possible to prevent the weights from rolling off in cases where there are pipe movements and the ditch wall cannot hold them in place. p The upper limit of the mass of the weight should take into consideration the maximum lifting capability at maximum boom of the side booms likely to be used in the handling and installation of the weights.

Figure 7-38.

Free body diagram forces action on submerged pipeline swamp weight configuration

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

386

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-39.

Free body of swamp weight spacing formula

Assuming the use of wood lagging, the maximum allowable river weight spacing is calculated from the following design formula:

L¼

where

Mc g Bc þ ðBw Mw gÞR Bp Mp g þ Bw Mw g

ð7 97Þ

L = center-to-center weight spacing, m Mc = mass of concrete weight, kg Bc = buoyant force due to fluid displaced by weight, N Bp = buoyant force per unit length of pipe due to fluid displaced by pipe, N/m Mp = mass per unit length of steel pipe, kg/m Mw = mass per unit length of wood lagging, kg/m Bw = buoyant force per unit length of wood lagging due to fluid displaced by wood lagging, N/m g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 R = concrete weight length, m. Wp = weight per unit length of pipe Ww = weight per unit length of wood Wc = weight of concrete.

See Figures 7-40 and 7-41, as well as the Table 7-15, for further details. To derive the formula [Equation (7-97)] for the spacing of river weight consider the system equilibrium as shown in Figure 7-41. ðWp Bp ÞL þ ðWc Bc Þ þ ðWw Bw ÞðL RÞ ¼ 0 Wc Bc þ ðBw Ww ÞR ¼ ðBp Wp þ Bw Ww ÞL

Therefore: L¼

Wc Bc þ ðBw Ww ÞR Bp Wp þ Bw Ww

ð7 98Þ

or Lmax ¼

Mc g Bc þ ðBw Mw g ÞR Bp Mp g þ Bw Mw g

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 99Þ

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

387

Figure 7-40.

Free body diagram forces action on submerged pipeline river weight configuration

Figure 7-41.

Free body diagram river weight spacing formula

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

388

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach TABLE 7-15. Sizing table for swamp weights (Ref ASME/ANSI B31.8, 2002) Sizing Table for Swamp Weights

Nominal Pipe Size (mm)

Mass (kg)

114.3 168.3

100 200

219.1

300

273.1

500

323.9

700

355.6

900

406.4

1,150

Wall Thickness of Pipe (mm)

Maximum Weight Spacing (mm)

3.2 3.2 4.8 4.0 4.8 4.8 5.6 5.6 6.4 5.6 6.4 6.4 7.1

20.0 9.0 20.0 7.7 9.7 8.0 9.4 7.8 9.0 7.7 8.6 7.5 8.3

Minimum Ditch Width at Weight (mm)

Minimum Ditch Depth at Weight (mm)

600 710

1,160 1,230

830

1,320

900

1,380

1000

1,450

1,040

1,490

1,100

1,550

Note that the weight of the pipe corrosion coating was again considered negligible. The minimum allowable concrete coating thickness is calculated from the following design formula: 9 82 h i 31=2 2 2 2 > > = < D D ð D 2t Þ c s 1 4 5 D Tc ¼ > 2> ; : c F 1 þ N 100 where

ð7 100Þ

Tc = concrete coating thickness, mm D = pipe outside diameter, mm t = Pipe wall thickness, mm c = concrete density, kg/m3 s = steel density, kg/m3 F = fluid density, kg/m3 N = negative buoyancy, %.

See Figures 7-42 and 7-43 for further details. Let Mp = mass of pipe, kg/m Mc = mass of concrete, kg/m Bp = buoyant force acting on pipe, N/m Bc = buoyant force acting on concrete, N/m. Then for neutral buoyancy or equilibrium: Bp + Bc = (Mp + Mc) g Negative buoyancy N is the incremental downward force required in excess of the force required for neutral buoyancy (i.e., it is a safety factor): N ¼ ðMp þ Mc Þg ðBp þ Bc Þ

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

Figure 7-42.

A

389

Free body diagram forces action on submerged pipeline continuous concrete coating

As a percentage:

Mp þ Mc g ðBp þ Bc Þ %N ¼ 100 Bp þ Bc If h 2 i 2 s Mp ¼ D ðD 2t Þ 4 h i 2 2 c Mc ¼ ðD þ 2Tc Þ D 4

Figure 7-43.

Parameters in continuous concrete coating thickness formula

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 101Þ

390

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Bp þ Bc ¼ ðD þ 2Tc Þ

2

g F 4

Then substituting these values in Equation (7-101) gives: h i 2 2 2 D ðD 2t Þ s D c 2 ð D þ 2Tc Þ ¼ N c F 1 þ 100 Therefore, 9 82 i 31=2 2 2 2 > > = < D ½D ð D 2t Þ c s 1 4 5 D Tc ¼ > N 2> ; : c F 1 þ 100

ð7 102Þ

Again the weight of the pipe corrosion coating was considered negligible. The need for river and swamp weights and their spacing can be verified during construction on a site-specific basis, as illustrated in Figure 7-44 and in Table 7-15. A certain depth of mineral soil is required to counteract buoyancy forces. If this depth is not available, weights are required. Another option is to excavate a deeper ditch to obtain the minimum thickness of mineral soil, thus reducing or eliminating the need for weights. Economics and the cost of transporting excess swamp or river weights plays a major role in the field verification of weight requirements.

Buoyancy & Specific Gravity Since weight always acts downward it follows that the reactive force (Buoyancy) must always act up and is positive in that direction. The term "negative" buoyancy has been coined to indicate that in circumstances where the body’s own weight is insufficient to keep it immersed, additional weight must be added. A completely immersed body will experience a buoyant up thrust equal to the weight of the fluid it has displaced. It can only remain immersed if (1) its own weight exceeds this buoyant force or (2) an external force or weight is applied (negative buoyancy). Negative buoyancy can be related to specific gravity since the concept of specific gravity is to compare the density of a given material to that of water. Consider a block of wood having a density of 481 kg/m3, placed in water with a density of 1,000 kg/m3. When the block is completely immersed in water it will require a net down ward force of 5091N

Figure 7-44.

Pipeline ditch inspection recording diagram

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

391

(519 kg 9.81 m/s2) to keep it submerged. The specific gravity of the wood will thus be 481/1000 = 0.481. The additional force required to keep the wood immersed is (1/0.481 the water density). i.e an additional weight of 2.08 times its original weight. By comparison, a concrete block with a density of 2240 kg/m3 has a specific gravity of 2.24 ensuring that it will sink in water. Consider an NPS 36 Pipe 0.622’’ wall thickness. The weight of the pipe is 236.1 lb/ft, (or 351.36 kg/m linear). If a linear foot of this pipe is submerged, the weight of water displaced is 441.8 lbs (657.7kg per metre), obtained from water density pipe volume. The specific gravity of the pipe is then the ratio of the weight of the pipe in air to the weight of water displaced i.e. 236.1/441.8 =0.54. Thus the pipe will float almost half out of the water or more precisely with a free board of 17 inches ( Fig 7. 44a). The weight needed to sink the pipe in water, (the required negative buoyancy) is then 441- 236.1 or 203.9 lbs per linear foot (or 305 kg/m). Assume now that the pipeline is submerged in a saturated soil whose density is 123.7 lb / ft3 (1981 kg/m3 ) or a specific gravity of 1.981. The buoyancy of the pipe in such soil is given by the weight of soil displaced minus the pipe weight in air, that is, 123.7 32/4 236.1 lb/ft = 873.1236.1 = 637 lb/ft. Hence under the circumstance of the soil behaving like a liquid, (a fine mud), the pipe, at 637 lb/foot, will have more than triple the positive buoyancy up thrust than previously and will now protrude 26 (66 cm) above the free surface. When the pipe is completely buried in a saturated soil, the only forces that will act on the pipe to keep it submerged will be the weight of the soil over burden and the shearing forces between the ditch wall and the overburden, assuming that the soil has a shearing strength (see Figure 7.44a). If it is assumed that the soil has sufficient shearing and cohesion strength to act as a plug over the pipe, then a buoyancy calculation can be made as follows. In order for the pipe to move upward under the action of the positive buoyancy force, the soil plug above it must slide upward too, opposed by the shearing action between the plug and the sides of the ditch wall as well as the weight of the plug. Suppose the soil has a shearing strength of 100 lb/ft2 and a cohesion strength of 60 lb/ft2, then for a 5’ depth of cover, the shearing force per unit length of pipe will be: 2 100 5 = 1000 lbs/ft. The weight of the soil overburden is found from : Soil density { (depth of cover ) pipe diameter minus the semi circular cross sectional area of pipe}- = 123.7 {5 x 3 32/8} = 1419 lb/ft. The total buoyancy resistance is therefore 1000 + 1419 = 2419 lb/ft. This is sufficient to provide a negative buoyancy of 2419637 = 1782 lb/ft. The pipe should therefore be stable. Should the soil above the pipe become cohesionless like sand i.e. have very little or no resistance, then the pipe will need to be weighted down to keep it submerged. TABLE 7-16. Verification of weight requirements during construction Station 50 m Intervals

Swamp Alignment Weights Sheet (AS) on as Yes

or No No.

(1) Ditch Depth (m)

(2) Depth Organic Layer (m)

(3) Difference (1) – (2) (m)

Are Swamp Weights Required: Yes or No

88 + 780 88 + 830

33 33

No No

1.10 1.12

0.30 0.40

0.80 0.72

NO NO

88 + 880

33

Yes

1.10

0.45

0.65

YES

88 + 930

33

Yes

1.15

0.80

0.35

YES

* Assumes ditch can be dewatered prior to backfill. ** If (3) is less than 0.7m swamp weights are required.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Remarks Begin Weights at Station Surveyors are to adjust start of weights

392

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach For reference purposes, the results of various buoyancy calculations neglecting the weight of overburden on the pipe are presented in Table 7-14. These sample calculations are provided for pipe diameters of 30’’ and 24’’ with continuous concrete coating and for concrete saddle weights. For the latter case different water densities have been assumed to demonstrate its effect on negative buoyancy.

Buoyancy Control Using Membrane/ Geotextile Weights Membrane or geotextile fabric weights, Figure 7-44b are made from very tough, geotextile polypropylene fabrics made into sacks that, when filled with local gravel ballast, are set onto a pipeline to achieve buoyancy control. The fabrics are not biodegradable, cannot be attacked by acidic soil, are permeable to water and support cathodic protection systems. Geotextile membranes have been used for several years in such applications as dike lining. When used for pipeline weighting, the filled membrane weights have compelling advantages over cast concrete weights.

Figure 7-44a.

Free-body Diagram of a Buried Pipeline in Saturated Soil

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

393

TABLE 7-17. Sample weight calculation results Fresh Water Density 62.366 LBM/ft3

1- Continuous Concrete Coated Pipe

30.000 0.500 3.50 140 157.53 358.17 515.70 306.18 159.55 465.73 49.97 1.11

Pipe Diameter Outside inches Pipe Wall Thickness inches Concrete coat thickness inches Concrete coating DENSITY lb/ft3 WEIGHT OF PIPE lb/ft WEIGHT OF COATING lb/ft WT OF PIPE AND COATING lb/ft WEIGHT OF WATER DISPLACED PIPE lb/ft WEIGHT OF WATER DISPLACED COATING lb/ft WEIGHT OF WATER DISPLACED lb/ft NET BUOYANCY lb/ft SPECIFIC GRAVITY = 2 - Saddle on Weight Medium Specific Gravity = Concrete weight lbs Concrete Volume ft3 AVERAGE DISTANCE Between weight ft WATER DISPLACED BY PIPE IN AVERAGE lbs WEIGHT OF PIPE IN AVERAGE lbs Submerged Concrete weight lbs WEIGHT OF CONCRETE AND PIPE Lbs NEGATIVE BUOYANCY lb/ft SPECIFIC GRAVITY*

30" Pipe 1 6800 48.6 20.0 6124 3151 3771 6921 39.89 1.087

24.000 0.500 2.50 140 125.49 202.38 327.87 195.95 90.15 286.11 41.76 1.15 24" Pipe

1 6800 48.6 26.0 5095 3263 3771 7034 74.57 1.24

1.1 6800 48.6 26.0 5604 3263 3468 6731 43.34 1.13

1.15 6800 48.6 26.0 5839 3263 3316 6579 27.68 1.076

1.2 6800 48.6 26.0 6114 3263 3165 6428 12.08 1.03

Note: Specific gravity is equal to the weight of the pipe and coating divided by the weight of the water/mud that it displaces.

p No extra trench depth or width is required. Unlike concrete weights which have most of their weight on top of the pipe, geotextile/membrane bag weights have their weight distributed along the sides of the pipeline. p Geotextile/membrane bag weights easily conform to the bottom of the ditch decreasing the need to dewater the trench. Also in mountainous areas no rock shield is needed between the pipe and the bag.

Figure 7-44b. Geotextile/membrane weights (Courtesy PipeSaks, Ontario, Canada)

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

394

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach p Construction personnel are generally not required to be in the trench to release fabric weights, increasing work place safety. p No bolts are needed installing or aligning as occurs with a bolt-on concrete weight. p Multiple lines can be installed in one ditch without the need to place sand bags between the lines. p Geotextile/membrane bag weights do not extend above the pipe and thus less ditch depth is required than with set-on type concrete weights p Movement of the pipeline will not result in damage to corrosion coating. p In remote areas where concrete is not readily available, geotextile/membrane bags can be filled using locally available stones rather than transporting a ready mix plant and cement to the site. p Geotextile/membrane bags can be filled and applied to the pipe immediately without any cure time. p No concern exists with producing and applying the geotextile/membrane bags at any ambient temperature, while freezing can destroy the structural integrity of concrete.

Perhaps most significant is that for almost all ballast materials, filled membrane weights require fewer weights to achieve the same buoyancy control as concrete weights. The reasons for this phenomenon can be found in examining the buoyancy properties of the ballast materials that can be used to fill the geotextile membrane weights, McGill, 2002. For example crushed limestone weighs approximately 1682 kg/m3. The difference between the 2450 kg/m3. for solid limestone and the crushed density of 1682 kg/m3. is due to the amount of void volume in the crushed stone sample. Using 2450 kg/m3. for solid density and 1682 kg/m3 for dry crushed density, the void volume will be = 100% [1 (1682/2450)] = 31.4%. The issue in buoyancy control is not the weight in air but rather the weight in water or mud. A concrete weight with a volume of 1 m3 will displace 1 m3 of fresh water (density 1000 kg/m3), thus causing an upward buoyant force of 9810N. However, a filled geotextile/ membrane bag with a volume of 1 m3 will displace less than 1 m3 of water due to the void space between the ballast/gravel particles. In the above example, the upward force is 6730N as only 0.686 m3 of water are displaced. It can thus be deduced that equal dry weights of concrete and crushed stone will result in a greater submerged weight for the crushed stone than the concrete and allow wider spacing of the weights.

Buoyancy Calculations for Membrane/ Geotextile Weights The use of geotextile/membrane weights can generally decrease the number of overall weights necessary for buoyancy control. Since the stones/gravel ballast are used to fill geotextile sacks, the resulting weight generally has a higher specific gravity than concrete. Therefore geotextile weights tend to provide a more positive specific gravity for pipeline buoyancy control than solid concrete weights. The following calculations (Connors, 2003) demonstrates the reasons for such a better buoyancy control for a 30" (762 mm), 0.562 " (14.3 mm) wall thickness pipe buried in a trench subjected to continuous flooding. The following assumptions are applicable

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

395

p Negative buoyancy 10% p Concrete weight 2240 kg/m3 p Geotextile sack filled with stone having density of 2560 kg/m3 (dry bulk density is 1522 kg/m3). Sack weight = 3200 kg p Pipe weight = 176.6 kg/m p Mud water density 1150 kg/m3 As per equation 7-95 Saddle weight spacing = Weight of submerged saddle weight (kg) / Total weight required (kg/m). Therefore, total weight required for buoyancy control = (pipe buoyancy pipe weight) Negative buoyancy. Pipe buoyancy = weight of mud water displaced by the pipe volume = 3.14/4 ( 762/ 1000)2 1150 = 0.456 m3/m 1150 kg/m3 = 524.2 kg/m. Thus total weight required = (524.2 kg/m 176.6 kg/m) 1.10 = 382.4 kg/m. Weight of submerged geotextile (or concrete) weight = Volume of geotextile (or concrete) weight (V) submerged density. For geotextile/membrane weights = V (density of stone density of mud water) = (3175 kg/ 2560 kg/m3) (2560 kg/m3 1150 kg/m3) = 1748.7 kg. For concrete weights = V (density of concrete density of mud water) = (3175 kg / 2242 kg/m3) (2242 kg/m3 1150 kg/m3) = 1546.4 kg. Calculating the Center-to-Center Spacing = Weight of submerged geotexile (or concrete) weight / total weight required, which indicates: Geotextile/membrane Weight Spacing = 1748.7 kg / 382.4 kg/m = 4.57 m. Concrete Weight Spacing = 1546.4 kg / 400 kg/m = 4 m Therefore, for this example, almost 14% fewer geotextile weights will be required than solid concrete weights.

CROSSINGS When pipelines are required to cross other facilities, structures, or watercourses, it is usually necessary to produce individual designs, including drawings. It is also necessary to obtain individual approval for such crossings from either the owner company of the facility being crossed or from the appropriate regulatory authority having jurisdiction. Usually these are required for the crossing of roads, railways, other pipelines, buried and overhead utilities (electrical, telephone), rivers, and watercourses. In addition to the general characteristics of the operating pipeline, design considerations and information generally required for appropriate approval are outlined below.

Roads Information required for approval to cross roads includes: p p p p p p

Geometry and location of crossing Minimum depth of cover to ditch bottom and to road surface Construction methods (bored, punched, or open-cut) Pipeline specifications (size, wall thickness, operating pressure, class location, etc.) Cross-sectional profile Warning signs

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

396

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Railroads Information required for approval to cross railroads includes: p p p p p p p

Geometry and location of crossing Casing details if crossing is cased Construction method Cross-sectional details Minimum depth of cover to ditch bottom and to the rails. Pipeline specifications Warning signs

Pipeline and Utility Crossings Information required for approval to cross other pipelines and utilities includes: p p p p

Geometry and location of crossing Relative position and clearance between the two Pipeline specification Cathodic protection (test leads)

River Crossings Information required for approval to cross rivers includes: p p p p p p p p p p p

Geometry and location of crossings Scour considerations Depth of burial Sag bend location Environmental considerations Timing of construction Bank stabilization methods Buoyancy control methods Construction techniques Pipeline specifications Warning signs

Design of Uncased Crossings of Highways The following describes a method for designing uncased pipeline crossings of highways without compromising the structural integrity of the pipeline. Pipeline codes (specifically CSA Z662-96) usually permit uncased pipeline crossings of highways, provided that the pipeline is installed at a great enough depth (usually a minimum of 1.2 metres) and that a thicker wall pipe is used within the right-of-way. Historical Background During the past two decades, the state-of-the-art of pipeline design has advanced significantly. The design of buried pipelines under vehicular crossings is rather unique in that it also involves soil-structure interaction. Casing of pipeline crossings under roads and railroads was a common practice in the past. Technological improvements in the manufacturing process, construction, and the protection of pipelines have reduced the need for casing. The current practice is to utilize uncased crossings whenever possible.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

397

On the basis of studies sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the independent research conducted by M.G. Spangler, a design procedure was developed and introduced in a paper presented on June 3, 1964, at the annual conference of the American Water Works Association. The Spangler method, often referred to as the ‘‘Iowa Formula,’’ has become the most widely accepted procedure for the design of uncased pipeline vehicular crossings. Design Procedures The design of an uncased pipeline crossing must be adequate to provide the following: 1. Sufficient support for the soil, the road surface, and the live loads over the pipe. 2. Sufficient rigidity so that excessive flattening of the pipe does not occur. 3. Sufficient strength so that combinations of internal and external forces do not cause failure of the pipe. The adopted basic theories are commonly those credited to Marston and Spangler. Marston’s equation has been proven to be conservative. (All design equations are provided at the end of this section.) The analysis of pipeline crossings can be broken down into two main categories: the determination of forces acting on the pipe and determination of the stress and deformations in the pipe section due to the combinations of the forces acting on the pipe. These are detailed below. Determination of Forces Acting on the Pipe In this category, the forces include the pipe’s internal pressure and the external pressure acting on the pipe due to the weight of the soil above it, as well as the wheel loads. (a) Internal Pressure The internal pressure is normally known for an operating pipeline or can be calculated using the expression given in the codes for design pressure [see Equation (7-7)]. Included in this expression is a design factor known as the class location factor which limits the internal stress level on the basis of population density adjacent to a pipeline. (b) Soil Load To calculate the soil load, Marston’s theory can be used. Included in Marston’s formula is a design parameter called the load coefficient, Cd. It is a function of the ratio of the height of the backfill or earth above the pipe to the width of the ditch or diameter of the bored hole. It is also a function of the internal friction of the soil backfill and the coefficient of friction between the backfill and the sides of the ditch. Marston recognized five different classes of soil in the development of his original formula. The generally accepted factor used today in design involving highway subsoil material is the soil class, which Marston labelled ‘‘ordinary maximum for clay (thoroughly wet).’’ Values of the load coefficient can be found in Figure 7-45. (c) Wheel Loads Vehicle wheel loads are considered as concentrated loads applied at the roadway surface and the load on the buried pipe, including impact loading, is calculated using the Boussinesq Point Load Formula. An influence coefficient, CT, is included in this formula, which represents the fractional part of the wheel load that is transmitted through the soil to

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

398

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach the buried pipe, and is based on Holl’s integration of the Boussinesq equation. This influence coefficient is dependent upon the length and width of the section of pipe under consideration, its depth below the roadway surface, and the position of the point of application of the wheel load with respect to the area in plan of the pipe section. The area on which the load is calculated is a projection of the pipe section on a horizontal plane through the top of the pipe. The influence coefficient can be found in Figure 7-46. Impact factors for vehicles operating on unpaved roads or those paved with a flexible-type surface range from 1.5 to 2.0; for rigid pavements it is taken to be 1.0. Determination of Stresses and Deformations A buried pipe under a road crossing is subjected to the hoop stress caused by internal pressure and circumferential bending stress due to the external static and dynamic loads. The bending stresses are assumed to be algebraically additive to the tensile hoop stress due to internal pressure. Also, flexible pipes are characterized by their ability to deform extensively without rupture of the pipe wall. They could fail by excessive deflection rather than by rupture. Therefore, design procedures are also directed toward predicting the pipe deflection under load. These stresses are as follows: (a) Hoop Stress (Sh) The hoop stress in the pipe is computed using Barlow’s Formula (Sh ) [see Equation (7-1)], which establishes a relationship between the tensile strength, the internal pressure, and the nominal dimensions of a pipe. (b) Circumferential Bending Stress (Sb) Stresses in the pipe caused by external loads can be computed using Spangler’s Formula. Included in this formula are bending and deflection parameters, Kb and Kz which are dependent upon the distribution of load over the top half of the pipe and the resultant distribution of the bottom reaction. The load distribution over the top half of the pipe may be considered as uniform. The bottom reaction, however, depends largely upon the extent to which the pipe settles into, and is supported by, the soil at the bottom of the trench or bored hole. For bored installations, the bottom reaction may be considered to occur over an arc of 908. For an open trench installation, the bottom reaction is generally assumed to occur over an arc of 308. (c) Deformations Pipe deflections may be calculated by using the Iowa Formula (Spangler’s), and ignoring the support of the soil. The pipe, therefore, acts as an elastic ring having no effective lateral soil support and the deflection is controlled entirely by the elastic resistance to bending of the pipe wall. Design Equations Marston’s Formula for soil load on an assumed rigid pipe: 2

Wd ¼ cd Bd

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 103Þ

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

399

Boussinesq’s Point Load Formula for wheel load: WL ¼

Figure 7-45.

cT I P L

Values of load coefficient Cd (Trench Fill) [Spangler et al., 1964]

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ð7 104Þ

400

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Figure 7-46.

Influence value I for concentrated or uniform surcharge of limited extent

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

401

Barlow’s Formula for hoop stress: Pi R t Spangler’s Formula for circumferential bending stress: Sh ¼

Sb ¼

6 Kb We REt 3

ð7 105Þ

3

ð7 106Þ

3

ð7 107Þ

Et þ 24Kz Pi R

IOWA Formula (Spangler’s) for pipe deflections: ¼

12 Kz We R 3

3

Et þ 24 Kz Pi R

Nomenclature: B = pipe diameter, m Bd = width of trench at the top of a pipe (i.e., effective width), m Cd = load coefficient for fill load CT = Influence coefficient for a single concentrated load = 4I E = Young’s Modulus, MPa Sb = circumferential bending stress in a thin steel pipe wall, MPa Sh = tensile hoop stress in a steel pipe, MPa I = impact factor for live loads, varies as function of buried depth. API RP1102, recommends 1.75 for railroads and 1.5 for highways each decreasing by 0.3 per foot of depth below five (5) feet until the factor equals 1.0 I = Influence value Kb = bending parameter Kz = deflection parameter L = length of pipe (taken as 0.91 m), m P = wheel load, kg Pi = internal pressure in pipeline, MPa R = outside radius of pipe, mm t = pipe wall thickness, mm Wd = soil dead load on the pipe, N/m We = total external load on the pipe, N/m (includes the soil dead load and the vehicle wheel live load) WL = wheel live load on the pipe, N/m = maximum vertical deflection in pipe, mm = unit weight of soil, kg/m3 Sample Calculation Given: p Pipe diameter = 610 mm p Pipe wall thickness = 12.7 mm p Pipe grade = 359 MPa p Class location = 1 p Internal pressure = 8450 kPa p Depth of cover = 1.2 m (min. per code) p Wheel load = 9,072 kg p Unit weight of soil = 1,922 kg/m3 p Young’s modulus = 200 103 MPa

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

402

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach Determine the combined circumferential stress and vertical deflection in the pipe due to internal pressure and external loads. (a) Calculate the soil load: p Trench width, assume Bd = 0.61 + 0.34 = 0.95 m p Depth of cover, H = 1.2 m p H/Bd = 1.2/0.95 = 1.26 Then, using Figure 7-45, Cd = 1.07, from curve D for ‘‘ordinary maximum for clay.’’ Therefore, using Equation (7-103), the soil dead load on the pipe is: Wd = 1.07 1,922 9.81 0.952 = 18,208 N/m (b) Calculate the wheel load on the pipe. (See Figure 7-47). Consider the load to be acting on an area: B L = 0.61 m 0.91 m Using Figure 7-46: m¼

B 0:61 ¼ ¼ 0:254 2H 2 1:2

n¼

L 0:91 ¼ ¼ 0:379 2H 2 1:2

which gives I = 0.038 and CT = 4 I = 0.152.

Figure 7-47.

Wheel load on the pipe

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

403

Therefore, using an impact factor of 1.5 within Equation (7-104), the wheel live load on the pipe is:

WL ¼

0:152 1:5 9; 072 9:81 ¼ 22; 298 N=M 0:91

(c) Calculate the hoop stress due to internal pressure and the circumferential bending stress due to external loads to give the combined stress in the pipe: 3

Sh ¼

8; 450 10 305 ¼ 203 MPa 12:7

This is lower than the maximum limit of 0.6 SMYS (= 215 MPa) required for uncased crossings in Class 1 location. The circumferential bending stress is given by Equation (7-106) where (see below), for an open trench installation, the bending and deflection parameter Kb and Kz are 0.235 and 0.108, respectively. From Equation (7-106), Sb when calculated will be found to be 43 MPa.

Width of Uniform Reaction (Degrees) 0 30 90

Crossing Construction Consolidated rock Open trench Bored

Deflection Kz

Parameters Moment Kb

0.110 0.108 0.096

0.294 0.235 0.157

Therefore, the combined stress is: Sh þ Sb ¼ 203 þ 43 ¼ 246 MPa ¼ 0:69 SMYS This is lower than the maximum limit of 0.72 SMYS permitted in a Class 1 location for the pipe sections adjacent to the crossing. This ensures that the uncased pipeline within the crossing operates at a lower stress level and has a higher factor of safety than the pipe sections adjacent to the crossing. (d) Calculate the vertical deflection (with no internal pressure to give the worst loading condition): Using Equation (7-107), the vertical deflection of the pipe is: 120:108ð18;208 þ 22;298Þ103 3053 ¼ 1:44 mm 200106 12:73 þ 240:1088:45106 3053 ¼ 0:24% of the nominal pipe diameter

¼

This is within the limit of 3% of nominal pipe diameter for vertical deflection as recommended by Spangler.

DEPTH OF COVER To protect pipe from general surface activity (e.g., farming, traffic), minimum cover is typically specified. Normal standards are 0.8 m of cover from top of the pipeline to ground surface for pipeline right-of-way, 2.0 m under railroad crossings with 1.0 m

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

404

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach minimum at the ditch low point, 1.4 m in the ditch of highway crossings, and 1.1 m in the ditch of local road crossings. At installations and assemblies, 0.9 m of cover is normal. Depth of cover may be reduced in bedrock areas or may be increased in highly unstable soil areas.

AERIAL MARKINGS Aerial markings are usually installed every 10 km along a pipeline. Through their identification numbers they provide location on the pipeline system to assist in aerial survey/reconnaissance.

WARNING SIGNS Warning signs are required at all road (including trails, survey, and seismic lines in undeveloped country), railroad, and watercourse crossings. They are there to warn the public of the installation, and should be laid out as follows: p There is to be one on each side of a crossing. p They are not to be placed within the right-of-way of a road or railroad, and are to be a maximum of 0.3 m outside the fence line. p They are to face the crossing. p There are to be no obstructions in front of them (e.g., brush) and they are to be maintained in a legible condition. Warning signs should say ‘‘WARNING PIPELINE’’ or ‘‘DANGER HIGH PRESSURE PIPELINE’’ with the company name and phone number. Sizes and other details for such signs are usually established by local regulatory authorities.

REFERENCES American Lifelines Alliance (2005), ‘‘Seismic Guidelines for Water Pipelines’’ National Institute of Building Sciences Washington D.C. American Petroleum Institute (API) RP1102, 1993, ‘‘Steel Pipeline Crossing Railroads and Highway,’’ 6th Edition. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1992, ‘‘Section VII, Division 2,’’ ASME, New York, NY. ASME B31.8, 2003, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, ASME, New York, NY. Bazzurro, P., and Cornell A., 1994, ‘‘Seismic Hazard Analysis of Non Linear Structures - Methodology,’’ Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No ll, pp. 3320 –3344. Bowles, J. E., 1997, Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, XIV + 750p. Bughi, S., Alesetti, P., and Bruschi, R., 1996, Slow Movements of Slopes Interfering with Pipelines, ‘‘Modeling and Monitoring,’’ Proc 15th ASME Int. Conference Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence, Italy, Vol. 5, pp. 363–372. Campbell, K. W., 1991, Analysis of Ground Shaking Hazard and Risk for Life Line Systems, Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, pp. 581–590.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Pipeline Mechanical Design

A

405

CAN/CSA, Z184-M92, 1992, ‘‘Gas Pipeline System,’’ CSA, Rexdale Ontario Canada. Chen, Q., and Nessim, M. A., 1994, ‘‘Risk Based Calibration of Reliability Levels for Limit States Design of Pipelines,’’ CFER Report to National Energy Board of Canada. Conners, G.W, 2003 ’The Use of Geotextile Fabric, Anti-Buoyancy Weights for Buried Pipelines" Prented at GAIL Gas Industry O&M Conference at Mumbai June 18th - 19th, http://pipesak.com/news/gailpaper.htm Cornell, C. A., 1968, ‘‘Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis,’’ Bull Seismological Society of America, Vol. 58, No 5, pp. 1583–1606. Colquhoun, I., and Cantenwalla, M., 1984, ‘‘Welding Pipe of Unequal Wall Thickness - Determination of Minimum Counterbore Length,’’ Internal Review Memo, NOVA, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. CSA., Z662-07, 2007, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Canadian Standards Association, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada. Committee on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lines (CGL), 1984, ‘‘Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems,’’ ASCE, New York, NY, 471. DNV, 1996, ‘‘Rules for Submarine Pipelines,’’ Det Norske Veritas Oslo, Norway. Dykes, S. A. M., 1996, ‘‘Pipeline Earthquake Survival, Tennant Creek, Australia, 1988,’’ Paper 2–15, Banff Symposium on Pipeline Reliability, CANMET, Ottawa, Canada. EGIG, 1993, European Gas Pipeline Incident Data - 1993 Update. European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Graph: British Gas, Dansk Gas Teknisk Centre, Enigas, Gaz de France, Gas Unie Ruhrgas AG, Distrigas and SNAM. Ellinas, C., Raven, P. W. J., Walker, A. C., and Davies, P., 1986, ‘‘Limit State Philosophy in Pipeline Design,’’ Journal Energy Resources Technology, Trans., ASME, January. Esteva, L., 1970, ‘‘Seismic Risk and Seismic Design Decisions,’’ in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, ed R.J. Hansen, MIT, Cambridge, pp. 142–182. Guedes, S. C., 1997, ‘‘Quantification of Modeling Uncertainty in Structural Reliability,’’ in Probabilistic Methods for Structural Design, ed. G. Guedes Soares, Klauwer Academic Publishers. Hingoraney, R., and Goto, D. N., 1995, ‘‘Isolation Valve Selection Play Important Role in Pipelining,’’ Pipeline and Gas Journal, August, pp. 38–41. Honegger, D. G and Nyman, D. J. ‘‘Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Assessment of Natural Gas and Liquid Hydrocarbon Pipelines’’ Pipeline Research Council International Catalog No L51427. International Standards Organisation. (2006) ‘‘Petroleum and natural gas industries – Pipeline transportation systems – Reliability-based limit state methods’’ ISO 16708-2006. 57pp. International Standards Organisation. (2000) ‘‘Petroleum and natural gas industries – Pipeline transportation systems’’. ISO 13623-2000. Kormann, P., and Zhou, Z. J., 1995, ‘‘Support Spacing of Buried and Above Ground Piping,’’ Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Advances in Underground Pipeline Engineering, Bellevue, WA, Eds J.K. and M. Jeyapalan, ASCE, New York, NY. Mashaly, E. A., and Datta, P. K., 1989, ‘‘Seismic Risk Analysis of Buried Pipelines,’’ Journal of Transporation Engineering, ASME, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 232–252. McGill, J. C., 2002 "Water Engineering & Management " April Vol: 149 Number: 4 McGill 2002 and Connors (2003) American Lifelines Alliance (2005), ‘‘Seismic Guidelines for Water Pipelines’’ National Institute of Building Sciences Washington D.C. Mohitpour, M., Trefaneuks, B., Tolmanquin, S. T., and Kossatz, H., 2003, ‘‘Oil Pipeline Valve Automation for Spill Reduction,’’ Proceedings of Rio Pipeline Conference, Oct 2003. Newmark, M. M., 1970, ‘‘Seismic Design Criteria for Alyeska Pipline Serric Company,’’ Appendix A-3. 1051, Alyeska Pipeline Design Submission. NORSOK Standard Y-002, 1997, ‘‘Reliability Based Limit State Principles for Pipeline Design.’’ O’Rouke, T., and Lane, P. A., 1984, ‘‘Liquidfaction Hazards and their Effects on Buried Pipelines,’’ Material Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University of California, Berkeley, Technical Report, NCEER - 89 - 007, February. Paulin, M. J., Philipps, R., and Boivin, R., 1996, ‘‘An Experimental Investigation into Lateral Pipeline Soil

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

406

A

Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach

Interaction,’’ Proc 15th ASME International Conference, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence, Italy, Vol. 5, pp. 313–324. Rajani, B. and Morgenstern, N.R., 1993, ‘‘A Simplified Design Method for Pipelines subjected to Transverse Soil Movements,’’ Proc 12th ASME Int. Conference, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, Vol. 5 pp. 137–165. Rizkalla, M., Trigg, A., and Simmonds, G., 1996, ‘‘Recent Advances in the Modeling of Longitudinal Pipeline Soil Interaction for Cohesive Soils,’’ Proc 15th ASME International Conference Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence, Italy, Vol. 5, pp. 325–332. Roark, R. J. and Young, W. C., 1975, Formulas for Stress and Strain, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. Schnockenberg, P. J., 2002, ‘‘How to Calculate Stress in Above/Below Ground Transition,’’ Pipeline Rules of Thumb Handbook, 4th Edition. Sotberg, T., Moan, T., Bruschi, R., Jiao, Y., and Mork, K. J., 1997, ‘‘The SUBERB Project: Recommended Target Safety Levels for Limit State Based Design of Offshore Pipelines,’’ Proc 16th Int. ASME Conference Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence, Italy. Spangler, M. G., and Marston, 1964, Proc. Annual Conf. American Water Work Association, June. Taylor, R. N. (ed), 1995, Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology, Blackie Academic and Professional, London, England. Thoft-Christensen, P., and Baker, M. J., 1982, Structural Reliability Theory and its Applications, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Timoshenko, S., and Young, D. H., 1965, Theory of Structures, PWS Publishing, Boston. Venzi, S., Malacarne, C., and Cuscuna, S., 1993, ‘‘Development of an Expert System to Manage the Safety of Pipelines in Unstable Slopes.’’ Proc 12th ASME Int. Conference Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, Vol. 5, pp. 127–134. Wanttand, G. M., O’Neill, M. W., Reese, L. G., and Kalajian, E. H., 1979, ‘‘Lateral Stability of Pipes in Clay,’’ Proc. 11th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, pp. 1025–1034. Wardenier, J., 1982, Hollow Section Joints, Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands. Wilbur, W. E., 1983, Pipe Line Industry, February. Wroth, G. P., and Wood, D. M., 1978, ‘‘The Accumulation of Index Properties with Some Basic Engineering Properties of Soils,’’ Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 137–145. Zhou, Z., and Murray, D. W., 1993(a) ‘‘Numerical Structural Analysis of Buried Pipelines,’’ Structural Engineering Report 181, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Zhou, Z., and Murray, D. W., 1993(b), ‘‘Behavior of Buried Pipelines Subjected to Imposed Deformations,’’ Proc. 12th ASME Int. Conference, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, Vol. 5, pp. 115–122. Zimmerman, T. J. E., Chen, Q., and Pandy, M. D., 1996, ‘‘Target Reliability for Pipeline Limit State Design,’’ pp. 111–120, Vol. 1, Proc. 1st ASME IPC Conference, Calgary Alberta.

Downloaded From: http://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/24/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms