Rabu, 17 Februari 2016

Flexible Pipe

What is Flexible Pipe?
Unbonded flexible pipes consist of concentric layers of metallic wires, tapes and extruded polymers designed to form a structure that addresses the specific environmental requirements and characteristics of the transported fluids.


Flexible Pipe Construction

Flexible pipe is a technically challenging, multi-layer structure of helically wound metallic wires and tapes and extruded thermoplastics 



 Regarding Aplication
  • Risers : Static or Dynamic Application
  • Flowlines : Static Application 


Regarding the Internal Fluid 
  • Smooth bore : Water Injection 
  • Rough Bore : Oil and Gas 


Regarding H2S presence 
  • Sweet service : with H2S 
  • Sour service : without H2S 




Flexible Pipe Standards:
API 17J - Specification for Unbonded Flexible Pipe Petrobras NI-2409-A - Flexible Pipe Specification - 2003 
– Must be in compliance on all Petrobras Projects.
ISO 13628 - Petroleum natural gas industries - Drilling and production equipment - Design and operation of subsea system- Part 2: Flexible pipe systems for subsea and marine applications. 
Bureau Veritas NI 364 DTO ROO E - Non-bonded Flexible Steel Pipes used as Flowlines 
DNV Rules for Flexible Pipe 
Other oil company specifications 
–- ALL SUPERSEDED BY API 17J 
RP17B - Recommended Practice for Unbonded Flexible Pipe (sister document to API 17J) 

References : "Introduction to Unbonded Flexible Pipe Design and Manufacturing" www.lem.ep.usp.br/pef418/wellstream.pdf

Hydrotest on Offshore Pipeline

Hydrostatic testing has long been used to determine and verify pipeline integrity. Several types of information can be obtained through this verification process.

However, it is essential to identify the limits of the test process and obtainable results. There are several types of flaws that can be detected by hydrostatic testing, such as:
  • Existing flaws in the material,
  • Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) and actual mechanical properties of the pipe,
  • Active corrosion cells, and
  • Localized hard spots that may cause failure in the presence of hydrogen.


There are some other flaws that cannot be detected by hydrostatic testing. For example, the sub-critical material flaws cannot be detected by hydro testing, but the test has profound impact on the post test behavior of these flaws.

Given that the test will play a significant role in the nondestructive evaluation of pipeline, it is important to determine the correct test pressure and then utilize that test pressure judiciously, to get the desired results.

When a pipeline is designed to operate at a certain maximum operating pressure (MOP), it must be tested to ensure that it is structurally sound and can withstand the internal pressure before being put into service. Generally, gas pipelines are hydrotested by filling the test section of pipe with water and pumping the pressure up to a value that is higher than maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) and holding the pressure for a period of four to eight hours.

ASME B 31.8 specifies the test pressure factors for pipelines operating at hoop stress of ≥ 30% of SMYS. This code also limits the maximum hoop stress permitted during tests for various class locations if the test medium is air or gas. There are different factors associated with different pipeline class and division locations. For example, the hydrotest pressure for a class 3 or 4 location is 1.4 times the MOP. The magnitude of test pressure for class 1 division 1 gas pipeline transportation is usually limited to 125% of the design pressure, if the design pressure is known. The allowed stress in the pipe material is limited to 72% of SMYS. In some cases it is extended to 80% of SMYS. The position of Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) is similar. Thus, a pipeline designed to operate continuously at 1,000 psig will be hydrostatically tested to a minimum pressure of 1,250 psig.

Based on the above information, let us consider API 5L X70 pipeline of 32-inch NPS, that has a 0.500-inch wall thickness. Using a temperature de-rating factor of 1.00, we calculate the MOP of this pipeline from following:
P= {2x t x SMYS x1x factor (class1) x 1} / D (ASME B 31.8 Section, 841.11)

Substituting the values:

P= 2x 0.5 x 70,000 x1 x0.72 x1/32 = 1,575 psig

For the same pipeline, if designed to a factor of 0.8, the MOP will be computed to be 1750 psig.
  • If the fittings were the limiting factors of the test pressure, then the following situation would arise.
  • If the fittings used in the system are of ANSI 600 then the maximum test pressure will be (1.25 x 1,440) 1,800 psig. This test pressure will support the requirements of both factor 0.72 and 0.8.
  • If, however, ANSI 900 fittings were chosen for the same pipeline system, the test pressure (1.25 x 2,220) 2,775 psig would test the pipeline but would not test the fittings to their full potential.

Let us first discuss the design factor of 0.72 (class1). In this case the test would result in the hoop reaching to 72% of the SMYS of the pipe material. Testing at 125% of MOP will result in the stress in the pipe reaching a value of 1.25 x 0.72 = 0.90 or 90% of SMYS. Thus, by hydrotesting the pipe at 1.25 times the operating pressure, we are stressing the pipe material to 90% of its yield strength that is 50,400 psi (factor 0.72).

However, if we use a design factor of 0.8 - as is now often used - testing at 125% of MOP will result in the stress in the pipe to 1.25 x 0.8 =1. The stress would reach 100% of the yield strength (SMYS). So, at the test pressure of 1800 psig the stress will be 56,000 psi (for factor 0.8). This will be acceptable in case of class 600 fittings. But, if class 900 fittings were taken into account, the maximum test pressure would be (1.25 x 2,220) 2,775 psig and the resulting stress would be 88,800 psi which will be very near the maximum yield stress (90,000 psi) of API 5L X 70 PSL-2 material.

Test Pressure And Materials SMYS
Though codes and regulatory directives are specific about setting test pressure to below 72% or in some cases up to 80% of the SMYS of the material, there is a strong argument on testing a constructed pipeline to “above 100% of SMYS,” and as high as 120% of SMYS is also mentioned. Such views are often driven by the desire to reduce the number of hydrotest sections, which translates in reduction in cost of construction. In this context, it is often noted that there is some confusion even among experienced engineers on the use of term SMYS and MOP/MAOP in reference to the hydrotest pressure.
It may be pointed out that the stress in material (test pressure) is limited by the SMYS. This is the law of physics, and is not to be broken for monetary gains at the peril of pipeline failure either immediate or in the future.

In this regard, section 32 of directive No. 66 of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board in 2005 is of importance. The guidance is specific about the situation. It directs that if the test pressure causes hoop stress in the material exceeding 100% of the material SMYS, then the calculation and the entire hydro test procedure needs to be submitted to the board for review and approval.

Stress Relieving And Strength
Often there is argument presented that higher test pressures exceeding 100% of the SMYS will increase the “strength” of the material and will “stress relieve” the material. Both arguments have no technical basis to the point they are made. We will briefly discuss both these arguments here:
1. Higher test pressure will “increase the strength.” As the material is stressed beyond its yield point, the material is in plastic deformation stage, which is a ductile stage, and hence it is in the constant process of losing its ability to withstand any further stress. So, it is not increasing in strength but progressively losing its strength.
2. The second argument of “stress reliving” is linked with the “increase the strength” argument. The stress relief of material is carried out to reduce the locked-in stresses. The process reorients the grains disturbed often by cold working or welding. The stress relief process effectively reduces the yield strength. Thus, it does not “strengthen” the material. Note: It may be pointed out that a limited relaxation of stresses does occur by hydro testing, but the test pressure should be less than the material’s yield point.
Another point to note here is that there is a stage in the stressing of the material where strain hardening occurs and the material certainly gains some (relative) hardness, and thereby, strength. This happens as necking begins but, at that point, unit area stress is so low that the strength of the material is lost and it remains of no practical use, especially in context with the pipe material we are discussing.

Returning to the subject of pressure testing and its objectives. One of the key objectives of the testing is to find the possible flaws in the constructed pipeline. The test develops a certain amount of stress for a given time to allow these possible flaws to open out as leakages. In the following section we shall discuss the relation of these flaws to the test pressure and duration.

Critical Flaw Size
The maximum test pressure should be so designed that it provides a sufficient gap between itself and the operating pressure. In other worlds, the maximum test pressure should be > MOP.

This also presupposes that after the test the surviving flaws in the pipeline shall not grow when the line is placed in service at the maintained operating pressure. For setting the maximum test pressure, it is important to know the effect of pressure on defect growth during the testing on the one hand and on the other flaws whose growth will be affected by pressure over the time.

The defects that would not fail during a one-time, high test pressure are often referred as sub-critical defects. However these sub-critical defects would fail at lower pressure if held for longer time. But the size of discontinuity that would be in the sub-critical group would fail-independent of time-at about 105% of the “hold” pressure. This implies that maximum test pressure would have to be set at 5-10% above the maximum operating pressure (MOP) in order to find such defects during the test and also to avoid growth of sub-critical discontinuities after the hydro test pressure is released and during the operation life of pipeline. This is should be the main objective of the hydro test.

If test pressure reaching 100% (design factor of 0.80) of the SMYS is considered, then one must also consider some important pre conditions attached to the procurement of the steel and pipe. Especially important to consider is the level of flaw size that was accepted in the plate/coil used to manufacture the pipe. The test pressure of such magnitude would require that the acceptable defect size be re-assessed. This is because all else being equal, a higher design factor, resulting in a thinner wall, will lead to a reduction in the critical dimensions of both surface and through-wall defects.

Where such conditions are likely it may be prudent to reconsider the level of accepted flaws in the material. The current recommendations in API 5L 44th edition for acceptance level B2 as per ISO 12094 (for SAW pipes) may not be acceptable because it has limited coverage of body and edges and the acceptance criteria is far too liberal, in terms of acceptable size and area of flaws. More stringent criteria must be specified more in line with EN 10160 where level S2 for body and level E2 for edges may be more appropriate to meet the demands of the higher test pressures.
Sub-critical surface flaw sizes at design factors of 0.80 and 0.72 are susceptible to growth at low stress and are time dependent. These flaws are also dependent on the acceptable limits of impact absorbing energy of the material and weld (not part of the discussion in this article).

This increase in depth-to-thickness (d/t) ratio in effect reduces the ligament of the adjoining defects that reduce the required stress to propagate the discontinuity. Critical through-wall flaw lengths are also factors to be assessed. While there is a modest reduction in critical flaw length, it still indicates very acceptable flaw tolerance for any practical depth and the reduction will have negligible influence in the context of integrity management. Note that flaws deeper than about 70% of wall thickness will fail as stable leaks in both cases. This statement implies that mere radiography of the pipe welds (both field and mill welds) may not suffice. Automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT) of the welds will be better suited to properly determine the size of the planer defects in the welds. Similarly the use of AUT for assessing the flaws in the pipe body will be more stringent than usual.

Pressure Reversal
The phenomenon of pressure reversal occurs when a defect survives a higher hydrostatic test pressure but fails at a lower pressure in a subsequent repressurization. One of the several factors that work to bring on this phenomenon is the creep-like growth of sub-critical discontinuities over time and at lower pressure. The reduction in the wall thickness, caused by corrosion, external damages, is also responsible for a reduction in puncture resistance in the pipe. The reduction in the wall thickness, in effect reduces the discontinuity depth to the material thickness.

This increase in d/t ratio reduces the ligament between the adjoining defects. This effectively reduces the stress required to propagate the discontinuity. The other factor affecting the pressure reversal is the damage to the Crack Tip Opening (CTO). The CTO is subject to some compressive force leading the crack tip to force-close during the initial test. On subsequent pressurization to significantly lower pressure this “force-close” tip starts to open-up and facilitates the growth of the crack. Hence, if such a pressure cycle is part of the design, then the point of pressure reversal should be considered.

Puncture Resistance
It may also be noted that there is a modest reduction in puncture resistance with both increasing SMYS and increasing design factor. Note that the maximum design factor is, in some instances, constrained by practical limits on D/t.
In any event, it should be noted that only a small proportion of large excavators are capable of generating a puncture force exceeding 300 kN and that the reductions in puncture resistance noted would have to be assessed for the integrated approaches to the management of mechanical damage threats.

Author
Ramesh Singh is Senior Principal Engineer (Materials, Welding and Corrosion) for Gulf Interstate Engineering, 16010 Barkers Point Lane, Houston, Texas 77079-9000, 713-850-3687, Fax: 713-850-3554, E-mail: rsingh@gie.com.

Biography
  • 49 CFR Part 192 Part-V, “Pipeline Safety: Standards for increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines,” Final Rule issued Dec. 17, 2008.
  • Anonymous, 1996. National Energy Board Report on the Public Inquiry Concerning Stress Corrosion Cracking on Canadian Oil and Gas Pipelines.
  • Anonymous, 2005. 6th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group,” EGIG 05R.0002. See EGIG website: http://www.EGIG.nl.
  • ASME B 31.8 Gas transmission and Distribution Piping system.
  • Chen, Q., Fuglem, M., Stephens, M., and Zhou, J., 2001. “Reliability-Based Design for Mechanical Damage,” 13th Biennial PRCI/EPRG Joint Technical Meeting, Paper 1.
  • Driver, R.G. and Zimmerman, T.J.E., 1998. “A Limit States Approach to the Design of Pipelines for Mechanical Damage,” Proc. 17th OMAE Conference, Paper OMAE98-1017.
  • Duffy, A.R., McClure, G.M., Maxey, W.A. and Atterbury, T.J., 1968. “Feasibility of Basing Natural Gas Pipeline Operating Pressure on Hydrostatic Test Pressure,” PRC/AGA NG-18 Report L30050.
  • Eiber, R.J., Hopkins, P., McLamb, M., and Abes, J., 2004. “Operation of New Design and/or Conversion of Existing Gas Pipelines to 80% SMYS Operating Stress,” GRI Report GRI-04-0152.
  • EN 10160 - 1999, Ultrasonic testing of steel flat product of thickness equal or greater than 6 mm (reflection method).
  • ISO 12094 - 1994 Welded steel tubes for pressure purposes-Ultrasonic testing for the detection of laminar imperfections in strip/plate used in the manufacture of welded tubes.
  • Rothwell, Brian, Staff Engineer, TransCanada PipeLines, “History and Operating experience of design factors above 0.72 in Canadian gas transmission pipelines.”
  • Texas Eastern, Technological Review of Hydrostatic Testing. Dec. 04, 1985.


Source : 

Pipeline Free Span Mitigation

Surface laid pipelines can experience free-spans due to various reasons; uneven seabed and local scour. If free-spans are long, the vortex induced vibrations (VIV) can cause the pipeline to undergo fatigue damage and severely reduce the pipeline design life.
Free-spans can be rectified by,
  • Pipeline Lowering (PL) Method
  • Grout/Sand bag placement
  • Rock dump placement

The selected method for rectification depend on the pipeline details, location, water depths and cost details.

Source:

Deepwater pipelines – Taking the challenge to new depths

Martin Connelly - Corus Tubes
To ensure continuity of supply, E&P companies have to consider opportunities in ever increasing water depths. Assisting this are new technological advances, including pipeline manufacture and design that increase the technical feasibility of deepwater developments.

Deepwater pipeline challenges
Conventional pipeline design, although concerned with many factors, is dominated generally by the need to withstand an internal pressure. The higher the pressure that products can be passed down the line, the higher the flow rate and greater the revenue potential. However, factors critical for deepwater pipelines become dominated by the need to resist external pressure, particularly during installation.
Local infield lines, such as subsea umbilicals, risers, and flowlines (SURF) usually are modest challenges as they are small in diameter and inherently resistant to hydrostatic collapse. In smaller sizes, these lines generally are produced as seamless pipe which is readily available and generally economical.
However, deepwater trunklines and long-distance tiebacks present a greater challenge. To increase subsea production these lines tend to be larger in diameter with a thicker pipe wall to withstand the hydrostatic pressure and bending as it is laid to the seabed.

Typically these lines are often 16 in. to 20 in. (40 cm to 50 cm) in diameter, which presents a further complication as the pipe sizes lie at the top end of economical production for seamless (Pilger) pipes. The Pilger process can produce the thick walled pipe required for these developments but often the manufacturing process is slow, the cost of material high, and the pipe lengths short. As a result, the most economical method to manufacture these lines is the UOE process. The increasingly stringent industry demands have driven this design toward its practical limits of manufacture and installation.

Corus Tubes has responded by manufacturing UOE double submerged arc welded (DSAW) linepipe to the deepest pipelines in the world. This pipe overcomes significant challenges associated with deepwater developments and facilitated a number of pioneering projects such as Bluestream and Perdido.
In the UOE process, steel plate is pressed into a “U” and then into an “O” shape and then is expanded circumferentially. Wall thickness and diameter requirements for deepwater trunkline pipe continue to be challenging for manufacturing economics and installation capabilities.
Distribution curve depicting ovality of Perdido pipe (457 mm x 20.62 mm thick).
While few producers manufacture UOE pipes at 16- to 20-in. outside diameter, this manufacturing method is quicker to market and more cost-effective than seamless alternatives. Corus Tubes’ process seeks to optimize the design of the material and minimize the wall thickness to:

  • Reduce material cost
  • Reduce welding cost
  • Reduce installation time
  • Reduce pipe weight for logistics and submerged pipe weight considerations
  • Increase design scope enabling a wider range of deepwater developments.

  

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) says the acceptability of a pipeline design for a given water depth is determined by means of standard equations that measure the relationship between OD, wall thickness, pipe shape, and material compressive strength.

Pipe shape
Finished pipe shape is optimized by balancing the manufacturing parameters, pipe compression, and expansion. The crimp, U-press, and O-press combination ensures that the pipe size is controlled, often beyond most offshore specifications. Enhanced pipe “roundness”, wall thickness, and diameter tolerance removes uncertainty in the design and production stages and allows pipe wall thickness optimization.

Compressive strength
Pipe manufactured by the UOE process undergoes various strain cycles, both tensile and compressive. The combination of these cycles affects the overall behavior of the material in compression. This is indicated in the equation given in the offshore design standard DNV OS F101 by the presence of the Fabrication Factor αfab. For standard UOE processes, the term represents a de-rating of 15% in the compressive strength as a result of the material response to the strain cycles during forming, known as the Bauschinger Effect.
This diagram represents the relationship between stress and strain when a material is placed in tension (top right quadrant) and then into compression (bottom left quadrant). When material is first placed in tension, such that it is deformed plastically, the yield stress in compression is reduced (compare this with the projected compressive strength in the bottom left quadrant had the pre-tension not been applied).  

When material is first placed in tension such that it is deformed plastically, the yield stress in compression is reduced. This originally was reported by Bauschinger in 1881. It is relevant to pipe making because during the forming process the material is placed in tension during expansion. Following this, the material is dispatched for installation, where the pipe sees compressive stress from the pressure of the seawater. Conventionally, the 15% reduction in compressive strength compensates for the Bauschinger Effect.
Since the early 1990s, Corus Tubes has observed that the results it obtained from the forming process often yielded higher compressive strengths than those obtained from the standard equations. Research and process development leads to a greater understanding of the metallurgical transformations during pipe forming. It is possible to reverse the Bauschinger Effect to deliver pipe with compressive strengths higher than conventionally expected.

Three things influence the final pipe mechanical properties in compression:
1 Choice of plate feedstock. The strength of the final pipe is a function of the chemistry and grain structure of the mother plate from which it is fabricated. All aspects of plate manufacture, the chemistry, rolling schedule as well as cooling rates ensure that the final plate properties change to give the required pipe characteristics.
2 Choice of mill compression and expansion parameters. By optimizing the various compression and expansion cycles, a set of manufacturing conditions can be determined to enhance collapse performance to potentially reduce pipe wall thickness in future deepwater applications.
3 Controlled low temperature heat treatment. With the correct plate chemistry it is possible to deliver a lift in compression strength through the application of a low temperature heat treatment. This final part of the process can be measured and assured only if the correct attention has been paid to the previous manufacturing stages.

A number of groundbreaking projects have pushed the boundaries of deepwater exploration and production, and enhanced understanding of pipeline capabilities and limits. In 2000, ExxonMobil used 64 km (40 mi) of line pipe for the Hoover/Diana project which reached depths of 1,450 m (4,800 ft). This also was the first time that small diameter pipe from Corus Tubes’ UOE mill in Hartlepool, UK, was supplied to the deepwater Gulf of Mexico market.

In 2001, Corus Tubes supplied 94 km (45,000 metric tons [49,604 tons]) of three-layer polypropylene coated, high grade, sour service linepipe and bends for the technically challenging Bluestream project which supplies gas from Russia to Turkey under the Black Sea. Corus also was selected to provide pipe for the deepest section of the pipeline at 2,150 m (7,054 ft) water depth.

Corus Tubes recently supplied line pipe to the Perdido Norte project in the Gulf of Mexico. Williams commissioned the production of small diameter UOE pipe and approximately 312 km (194 mi) of uncoated steel line pipe for ultra deepwater depths from 3,500-8,300 ft (1,067-2,530 m) with a rugged seabed terrain. The pipe, manufactured to withstand a service rating equivalent to ANSI 1500, is one of the deepest pipelines in the world.

One section of the pipeline transfers hydrocarbons from the FPS host in Alaminos Canyon block 857 and terminates in East Breaks block 994 (78 mi [126 km]). The gas pipeline terminates at Williams Seahawk pipeline in East Breaks block 599 (106 mi [171 km]). The 18-in. (46-cm) diameter pipe was manufactured in wall thicknesses ranging from 19.1 mm to 27.0 mm (¾ in. to 1 in.).

Further to the experiences on Perdido, Corus has produced a thicker pipe at 18-in. diameter for the Petrobras Tupi project. The pipe has a wall thickness of 31.75 mm (1 ¼ in.) and lies in a water depth of 2,200 m (7,218 ft) offshore Brazil. While this project is not the deepest, it represents a milestone in pipe forming. This is the thickest UOE pipe ever manufactured at 18-in. diameter (note as the diameter of a pipe reduces and thickness increases, the levels of strain and power required to forming it increases).

Tupi is a testimony to the complexity of deepwater pipe design. While collapse at these water depths is a critical design state, there also were concerns about corrosion, since the Tupi production has some small amounts of contaminants in the exportation gas (about 5% CO2 and a very small amount of H2S). Even though the exported gas should be dehydrated, the CO2 raises concerns about pipe corrosion and is managed by increasing the nominal wall thickness to account for loss of material during life. At the end of the pipe life it still must withstand the pressure at the seabed even with a reduced wall thickness.

The H2S, although not expected in the exported gas, could cause cracking to occur in steels where the grain structure and cleanliness is not optimized. In addition, high levels of forming strain can exacerbate the situation. Corus Tubes applied its knowledge of steel production and pipe forming to ensure that the plate it procured from Dillinger Hutte and Voest Alpine provided ultimate resistance to H2S corrosion.
Pipelines in deepwater require the tightest dimensional tolerances to maximize resistance to collapse and to maximize girth weld fatigue resistance. Furthermore, pipelines from 16-in. to 28-in. (71-cm) are seen as the future for deepwater export pipeline systems.

About the author
Martin Connelly is responsible for ensuring Corus Tubes’ line pipe can meet the difficult technical demands. He also oversees the company’s new product and market development. Connelly joined Corus Group in 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Metallurgy and Engineering Material from Strathclyde University. He worked in a number of technical, quality, and operational roles before being promoted to product development metallurgist.

Sumber :
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-69/issue-7/flowlines-__pipelines/deepwater-pipelines.html

Pipeline Buckling and Collapse

With ultra deepwater pipelines being considered for water depths of nearly 3,000 m, pipe collapse, in many instances, will govern design. For example, bending loads imposed on the pipeline near the seabed (sagbend region) during installation will reduce the external pressure resistance of the pipeline, and this design case will influence (and generally govern) the final selection of an appropriate pipeline wall thickness.

To date, the deepest operating pipelines have been laid using the J-lay method, where the pipeline departs the lay vessel in a near-vertical orientation, and the only bending condition resulting from installation is near the touchdown point in the sagbend. More recently, however, the S-lay method is being considered for installation of pipelines to water depths of nearly 2,800 m. During deepwater S-lay, the pipeline originates in a horizontal orientation, bends around a stinger located at the stern or bow of the vessel, and then departs the lay vessel in a near-vertical orientation. During S-lay, the installed pipe experiences bending around the stinger (overbend region), followed by combined bending and external pressure in the sagbend region.
 
Initial bending in the overbend during pipe installation may result in stress concentrations in pipe-to-pipe weld offsets or in pipe-to-buckle arrestor interfaces.
In light of these bending and external pressure-loading conditions, analytical work was performed to better understand the local buckling behavior of thick-walled line pipe due to bending, and the influence of bending on pipe collapse. Variables considered in the analytical evaluations include pipe material properties, geometric properties, pipe thermal treatment, the definition of critical strain, and imperfections such as ovality and girth weld offset.

Design considerations
As the offshore industry engages in deeper water pipeline installations, design limits associated with local buckling must be considered and adequately addressed. Instances of local buckling include excessive bending resulting in axial compressive local buckling, excessive external pressure resulting in hoop compressive local buckling, or combinations of axial and hoop loading creating either local buckling states. In particular, deepwater pipe installation presents perhaps the greatest risk of local buckling, and a thorough understanding of these limiting states and loading combinations must be gained in order to properly address installation design issues.
Initial bending in the overbend may result in stress concentrations in pipe-to-pipe weld offsets or in pipe-to-buckle arrestor interfaces. Initial overbend strains, if large enough, may also give rise to increases in pipe ovalization, perhaps reducing its collapse strength when installed at depth. Active bending strains in the sagbend will also reduce pipe collapse strength, as has been previously demonstrated experimentally.

Overall modeling approach
In an attempt to better understand pipe behavior and capacities under the various installation loading conditions, the development and validation of an all-inclusive finite element model was performed to address the local buckling limit states of concern during deepwater pipe installation. The model can accurately predict pipe local buckling due to bending, due to external pressure, and to predict the influence of initial permanent bending deformations on pipe collapse. Although model validation is currently being performed for the case of active bending and external pressure (sagbend), no data has been provided for this case.

The finite element model developed includes non-linear material and geometry effects that are required to accurately predict buckling limit states. Analysis input files were generated using our proprietary parametric generator for pipe type models that allows for variation of pipe geometry (including imperfections), material properties, mesh densities, boundary conditions and applied loads.

A shell type element was selected for the model due to increased numerical efficiency with sufficient accuracy to predict global responses. The Abaqus S4R element is a four-node, stress/displacement shell element with large-displacement and reduced integration capabilities.

All material properties were modeled using a conventional plasticity model (von Mises) with isotropic hardening. Material stress-strain data was characterized by fitting experimental, uniaxial test results to the Ramberg-Osgood equation.
Pipe ovalizations were also introduced into all models to simulate actual diameter imperfections, and to provide a trigger for buckling failure mode. This was done during model generation by pre-defining ovalities at various locations in the pipe model.
Bending case
A pipe bend portion of the model was developed to investigate local buckling under pure moment loading. Due to the symmetry in the geometry and loading conditions, only one half of the pipe was modeled, in order to reduce the required computational effort. The pipe mesh was categorized into four regions
  • Two refined mesh areas located over a length of one pipe diameter on each side of the mid-point of the pipe to improve the solution convergence (location of elevated bending strains and subsequent buckle formation)
  • Two coarse mesh areas at each end to reduce computational effort.

Clamped-end boundaries were imposed on each end of the pipe model to simulate actual test conditions (fully welded, thick end plate). Under these assumptions, the end planes (nodes on the face) of both ends of the pipe were constrained to remain plane during bending. Loading was applied by controlled rotation of the pipe ends.
In terms of material properties, the axial compressive stress-strain response tends to be different from the axial tensile behavior for UOE pipeline steels. To accurately capture this difference under bending conditions, the upper (compressive) and lower (tension) halves of the pipe were modeled with separate axial material properties (derived from independent axial tension and compression coupon tests).

In general, the local compressive strains along the outer length of a pipe undergoing bending will not be uniform due to formation of a buckle profile. In order to specify the critical value at maximum moment for an average strain, four methods were selected based on available model data and equivalence to existing experimental methods.
Collapse case

The same model developed for the bending case was used to predict critical buckling under external hydrostatic pressure. This included the use of shell type elements and the same mesh configuration. In the analyses, a uniform external pressure load was incrementally applied to all exterior shell element faces. Radially constrained boundary conditions were also imposed on the nodes at each end of the pipe to simulate actual test conditions (plug at each end). In contrast to the pipe bend analysis, only a single stress-strain curve (based on compressive hoop coupon data) was used to model the material behavior of the entire pipe.

Bending case validation
The pipe bend finite element model was validated using full-scale and materials data obtained from the Blue Stream test program, both for “as received” (AR) and “heat treated” (HT) pipe samples. Geometrical parameters were taken from the Blue Stream test specimens and used in the model validation runs. Initial ovalities based on average and maximum measurements were also assigned to the model. The data distribution reflects the relative variation in ovality measured along the length of the Blue Stream test specimens.
 
All of finite element models included analysis input files generated using parametric generator for pipe type models that allows for variation of pipe geometry (including imperfections), material properties, mesh densities, boundary conditions, and applied loads.
Axial tension and compression engineering stress-strain data used in the model validation were based on curves fit to experimental coupon test results. As pointed out previously, separate compression and tension curves were assigned to the upper and lower pipe sections, respectively, in order to improve model accuracy.
In the validation process, a number of analyses were performed to simulate the Blue Stream test results (base case analyses), and to investigate the effects of average strain definition, gauge length, and pipe geometry. These analyses, comparisons and results were:
  • The progressive deformation during pipe bending for the AR pipe bend showed the development of plastic strain localization at the center of the specimen
  • A comparison between the resulting local and average axial strain distributions for two nominal strain levels indicated that at the lower strain level the distribution of local strain is relatively uniform, at the critical value (peak moment) a strain gradient is observed over the length of the specimen with localization occurring in the middle, the end effects are quite small due to specimen constraint and were observed at both strain levels
  • The resulting moment-strain response for the AR pipe base case analysis found the calculated critical (axial) strain slightly higher than that determined from the Blue Stream experiments
  • The effect of chosen strain definition and gauge length on the critical bending strain for the AR pipe base case analysis, using the four methods for calculating average strain, gave similar results
  • The critical strain value is somewhat sensitive to gauge length for a variety of OD/t ratios
  • The finite element results are seen to compare favorably with existing analytical solutions and available experimental data taken from the literature. For pipe under bending, heat treatment results in only a slight increase in critical bending strain capacity.

Collapse case validation
Similar to the pipe bending analysis, the plain pipe collapse model was also validated using full-scale and materials data obtained from the Blue Stream test program, both for “as received” (AR) and “heat treated” (HT) pipe samples. Pipe geometry and ovalities measurements taken from the Blue Stream collapse specimens were used in the validation analyses. Initial ovalities based on average and maximum measurements were also assigned to the model at different reference points. Hoop compression stress-strain data was used in the model, and was based on the average of best fit curves from both ID and OD coupon specimens, respectively. To validate the pipe collapse model, comparison was made to full-scale results from the Blue Stream test program which demonstrated a very good correlation between the model predictions and the experimental results.
In addition to the base case, further analyses were run for a number of alternate OD/t ratios ranging from 15 to 35. Similar to the pipe bend validation, the OD/t ratio was adjusted by altering the assumed wall thickness of the pipe. The finite element results have compared favorably with available experimental data taken from the literature.

The beneficial effect of pipe heat treatment for collapse has resulted in a significant increase in critical pressure (at least 10% for an OD/t ratio of 15). The greatest benefit, however, is observed only at lower OD/t ratios (thick-wall pipe). This can be attributed to the dominance of plastic behaviour in the buckling response as the wall thickness increases (for a fixed diameter). At higher OD/t ratios, buckling is elastic and unaffected by changes in material yield strength.

Pre-bent effect on collapse
Finite element analyses were also performed to simulate recent collapse tests conducted on pre-bent and straight UOE pipe samples for both “as received” (AR) and “heat treated” (HT) conditions. The intent of these tests was to demonstrate that there was no detrimental effect on collapse capacity due to imposed bending as a result of the overbend process. In the pre-bend pipe tests, specimens were bent up to a nominal strain value of 1%, unloaded, then collapse tested under external pressure only.
 
To address the pre-bend effect on collapse, a simplified modeling approach was used whereby the increased ovalities and modified stress-strain properties in hoop compression due to the pre-bend were input directly into the existing plain pipe collapse model (the physical curvature in the pipe was ignored).

To address this loading case, a simplified modeling approach was used whereby the increased ovalities and modified stress-strain properties in hoop compression due to the pre-bend were input directly into the existing plain pipe collapse model (the physical curvature in the pipe was ignored).

A comparison between the predicted and experimental collapse pressures for both pre-bent and straight AR and HT pipes indicates that the model does a reasonable job of predicting the collapse pressure for both pipe conditions. It is also clear that the effect of moderate pre-bend (1%) on critical collapse pressure is relatively small.
While the pre-bend cycle results in an increased ovality in the pipe, this detrimental effect is offset by a corresponding strengthening due to strain hardening. As a result, the net effect on collapse is relatively small. For the AR pipe samples, there was a slight increase in collapse pressure when the pipe was pre-bent. Conversely, for the HT pipe, the opposite trend was observed. This latter decrease in collapse pressure can be attributed to two effects: the larger ovality that resulted from the pre-bend cycle and the limited strengthening capacity available in the HT pipe (the HT pipe thermal treatment increased the hoop compressive strength, offering less availability for cold working increases due to the pre-bend).

Similar to previous experimental studies on thermally aged UOE pipe, the beneficial effect of heat treatment was demonstrated in the pre-bend analysis. The collapse pressure for the pre-bent heat treated (HT) pipe is approximately 8-9% higher than that for the as received (AR) pipe, based on both the analytical and experimental results. This increase, however, is lower than that observed for un-bent pipe (approximately 15-20% based on analysis and experiments).

This unique case of an initial permanent bend demonstrated that the influence on the collapse strength of a pipeline was minimal resulting from an increase in hoop compressive strength (increasing collapse strength), and an increase in ovality (reducing collapse strength). This directly suggests that excessive bending in the overbend will not significantly influence collapse strength.

Future work includes advancing the model validation to the case of active bending while under external pressure. This condition exists at the sagbend region of a pipeline during pipelay and, in many cases, will govern overall pipeline wall thickness design.

Reference: 

Pipeline Hydro Test Pressure Determination

Hydrostatic testing has long been used to determine and verify pipeline integrity. Several types of information can be obtained through this verification process.

However, it is essential to identify the limits of the test process and obtainable results. There are several types of flaws that can be detected by hydrostatic testing, such as:
  • Existing flaws in the material,
  • Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) and actual mechanical properties of the pipe,
  • Active corrosion cells, and
  • Localized hard spots that may cause failure in the presence of hydrogen.

There are some other flaws that cannot be detected by hydrostatic testing. For example, the sub-critical material flaws cannot be detected by hydro testing, but the test has profound impact on the post test behavior of these flaws.

Given that the test will play a significant role in the nondestructive evaluation of pipeline, it is important to determine the correct test pressure and then utilize that test pressure judiciously, to get the desired results.

When a pipeline is designed to operate at a certain maximum operating pressure (MOP), it must be tested to ensure that it is structurally sound and can withstand the internal pressure before being put into service. Generally, gas pipelines are hydrotested by filling the test section of pipe with water and pumping the pressure up to a value that is higher than maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) and holding the pressure for a period of four to eight hours.

ASME B 31.8 specifies the test pressure factors for pipelines operating at hoop stress of ≥ 30% of SMYS. This code also limits the maximum hoop stress permitted during tests for various class locations if the test medium is air or gas. There are different factors associated with different pipeline class and division locations. For example, the hydrotest pressure for a class 3 or 4 location is 1.4 times the MOP. The magnitude of test pressure for class 1 division 1 gas pipeline transportation is usually limited to 125% of the design pressure, if the design pressure is known. The allowed stress in the pipe material is limited to 72% of SMYS. In some cases it is extended to 80% of SMYS. The position of Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) is similar. Thus, a pipeline designed to operate continuously at 1,000 psig will be hydrostatically tested to a minimum pressure of 1,250 psig.

Based on the above information, let us consider API 5L X70 pipeline of 32-inch NPS, that has a 0.500-inch wall thickness. Using a temperature de-rating factor of 1.00, we calculate the MOP of this pipeline from following:
P= {2x t x SMYS x1x factor (class1) x 1} / D (ASME B 31.8 Section, 841.11)
Substituting the values:
P= 2x 0.5 x 70,000 x1 x0.72 x1/32 = 1,575 psig
For the same pipeline, if designed to a factor of 0.8, the MOP will be computed to be 1750 psig.

Sumber: 

Total Ross hot-tap uses T-joint, heat pre-treatment

The Ross field, located in the central North Sea and operated by Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd, is an oil reservoir with a significant volume of associated gas. The field was brought into production by means of a subsea production system and an FPSO which will offload oil to a shuttle tanker. Gas is exported via a new 6-in. pipeline which runs 25 km from the Ross field to the 32-in. Frigg Line 1 gas trunkline, operated by Total Oil Marine, and on to St Fergus in North East Scotland. A critical part of this development was achieving the connection between the gas export line and the Frigg trunkline. A conventional welded connection to the trunkline would have required the trunkline to be shut down and decommissioned for the duration of the connection process.
This would have posed an unacceptable cost. So, a welded hot-tap, a welded connection made while the pipeline continued to flow gas at full pressure (100 bar), was selected as the most cost-effective solution. Stolt Comex Seaway was selected to undertake the work.

Previous experience
The only previous hot-tap in the North Sea was undertaken by Stolt Comex Seaway in The Netherlands for Wintershall and NAM. The technology of hot-tapping itself is not new, having been used many times in the Gulf of Mexico. However, the technique of establishing a welded "T" joint and then hot-tapping through this into the pipeline uses technology developed and patented by Stolt Comex Seaway. In order to make a high-quality welded connection onto a pipeline which is flowing high pressure gas, the cooling effect of the gas flowing through the pipe must be couteracted. SCS has developed a technique of using induction heating to maintain a local pipeline wall temperature of 100°C while the weld is being made, which enables hydrogen to be released from the weld.
The hot-tapping operation is performed in the following manner:

  •  A branch pipe is welded onto the pipeline.
  • The branch pipe is then reinforced by welding in place a split sleeve section.
  • A three-way Tee valve assembly is welded onto the Tee on the split sleeve.
  • The hot-tapping is performed through the valve assembly, which maintains pipeline integrity,                   maintaining pressure and flow.
  • Once this is successfully completed, additional connecting pipework and valving can be put in place.
  • The tie-in of the new line is completed.

Commence work
The contract for the work was awarded to SCS in late 1997. Design engineering was completed exactly four weeks later. Procurement, fabrication, and onshore trials were finished in time to take the project offshore on May 20. The Ross field hot-tap and tie-in operation was carried out in three phases under the control of Total, as owners of the trunk line.
The first phase was to locate the position on the Frigg Line 1 and to check the condition and ovality of the pipe to ensure that the condition of the pipe was within tolerance. Following the satisfactory completion of this operation, the exposed section of the pipe was then wrapped in a concrete mat to provide temporary protection until the hot-tap operation took place.
Full scale onshore trials were then set up for the following purposes:

  • Familiarizing all project personnel with the detail of the operation
  • Undertake the diver/welder qualifications at the National Hyperbaric Centre
  • Verify the finite element analysis of the split sleeve and branch structure that was to be welded to the       pipeline
  • Perform a full scale simulation of the welding, hot tapping, and fit up operation.

Welding the branch pipe and split sleeve to the pipeline is only made possible by the use of induction heating of the pipeline, a proprietary process developed by SCS, to overcome the massive heat loss that would otherwise be caused by the continual flow of high pressure gas in the pipeline. 

Dry habitat

A subsea welding dry habitat is used to undertake the welding of the Tee and valve assembly. The habitat was then recovered and the hot-tapping rig installed over the pipe. The cutting machinery is introduced to the pipeline through a 12-in. ball valve mounted on top of the welded Tee assembly. Working with a pipeline pressure of 100 bar and a flow rate of 4 meters/sec, the hot-tap machine had to be rated for an internal pressure of 125 bar when cutting and 150 bar when static. The hot-tapping machine introduces the circular cutter to the pipe by means of a pilot drill which, once the circular cut is completed, holds on to the coupon by means of wire retainers and a "posilatch" system. This is then withdrawn, the ball valve closed, and the cutting machine removed.
Two pipe clamps were then installed to support the additional six inch pipework and valves before an over-trawlable protection structure was positioned over the tie-in point and secured in place by piles.
The ability to perform hot-tap connections in live pipelines may be a critical factor in the economics of bringing a new field on stream. The costs saved by being able to make a high quality welded connection without having to shut down and evacuate the pipeline are considerable and with every hot-tapping project that is successfully completed confidence in the technique is increased.
SCS moved on from the Total hot-tap to tie in the 16-in. gas line from Esso Norge Jotun FPSO into the 36-in. Statpipe trunkline south of Heimdal in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.


Copyright 1998 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.

Sumber : 
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-58/issue-8/news/pipeline/total-ross-hot-tap-uses-t-joint-heat-pre-treatment.html