Artic Pipeline Transport

Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005

THE UNIVERSITY CENTRE IN SVALBARD (UNIS)
COURSE IN ARCTIC ENGINEERING
AT-327 ARCTIC OFFSHORE ENGINEERING
OCTOBER 19, 2005
ARCTIC PIPELINE TRANSPORT
OF HYDROCARBONS
Luigino VITALI
Snamprogetti S.p.A.
Via Toniolo 1, 61032, Fano (PU), Italy
luigino.vitali@snamprogetti.eni.it
Snamprogetti 2
October 19th, 2005
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO GAS TO MARKET
OFFSHORE PIPELINE TECHNOLOGY
PIPELINE SYSTEM DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
DESIGN PROCESS
PIPELINE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
LIMIT STATES BASED DESIGN
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti 3
October 19th, 2005
NET GAS FLOW TRADE
Ugo Romano (EniTecnologie)
NATURAL GAS: FROM RESERVES TO MARKET.
Conference Gas Naturale una Fonte Affidabile e Versatile -
EniTecnologie - San Donato Milanese 14 Dicembre 2004
Net Gas Flow (bcm): TODAY
Net Gas Flow (bcm): 2030
Snamprogetti 4
October 19th, 2005
GAS-TO-MARKET: POTENTIAL GAS IMPORT TO EU15 (EU30)
Source:
FUTURE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY OPTIONS AND SUPPLY COSTS FOR EUROPE, OME 2001
ALGERIA
LYBIA
EGYPT
TRINIDAD
RUSSIA
NORWAY
1
55
(60) 1
73 (130)
50
5
82
(90)
11 12
113 (200)
(100)
90
1
35 25
113 (200)
105
(115)
10
15
20
N
I
G
E
R
I
A
(120)
110
2000
2010
2020
ALGERIA
LYBIA
EGYPT
TRINIDAD
RUSSIA
NORWAY
1
55
(60) 1
73 (130)
50
5
82
(90)
11 12
113 (200)
(100)
90
1
35 25
113 (200)
105
(115)
10
15
20
N
I
G
E
R
I
A
(120)
110
2000
2010
2020
0
150
300
450
600
1 2 3
1999 2010 2020
G
S
m
3
Gas Demand Forecast 20102020 - UE-15
Source: OME 2001
Power
Industry
Residential & Commercial
0
150
300
450
600
1 2 3
1999 2010 2020
G
S
m
3
Source: OME 2001
0
150
300
450
600
1 2 3
1999 2010 2020
G
S
m
3
0
150
300
450
600
1 2 3
1999 2010 2020
G
S
m
3
Source: OME 2001
Power
Industry
Residential & Commercial
Snamprogetti 5
October 19th, 2005
Distance, km
0
5000 4000
1000 2000 3000
6000
AC/DC Wire
PIPELINE
GAS to LIQUIDS:
Syndiesel, DME, Methanol
LD.HC.HP.HG
Pipelines
G
a
s

V
o
l
u
m
e
,

B
C
M
/
y
e
a
r
25
15
10
5
0
20
30
LNG
GAS TO MARKET OPTIONS GAS TO MARKET OPTIONS
Snamprogetti 6
October 19th, 2005
CROSS-COUNTRY PIPELINES:
CURRENT AND NEAR-TO-COME R & D OUTCOME
(Transportation cost less than 1.5 $ / MBTU)
Long Distances (LD.): 3000 7000 km
High Capacities (HC.): 15 30 Gsm
3
/y
High Pressures (HP.): 10.0 15.0 MPa
High Grades (HG.): X80 X120 API 5L
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION:
A UNIQUE WAY TO COST REDUCTION AND
IMPROVED RELIABILITY
Snamprogetti 7
October 19th, 2005
2.000
DISTANCE, km
4.000 6.000
0
8.000
$
/
M
B
T
U
1
2
0
3
TRANSPORTATION
WELL HEAD
TRANSIT FEES
BORDER LINE COST IN EU (2nd HALF NINTIES)
LP Land Pipelines
LD.HC.HP.HG
Land Pipelines
BREAKEVEN
DISTANCE
BREAKEVEN DISTANCE FOR GAS TRANSPORTATION VIA PIPELINE
Snamprogetti 8
October 19th, 2005
GAS TO MARKET OPTIONS
The key solutions of gas transport as a function of Volumes and distancies
LNG PIPELINE LNG PIPELINE
SUPPLY COST FOR GAS DELIVERY TO EU15 (2010-2020)
Source: Future natural gas supply options and supply costs for europe, OME 2001
Snamprogetti 9
October 19th, 2005
GAS TO MARKET OPTIONS
LNG and Onshore/Offhore Pipeline Systems are the two
possible alternatives from the economical and technical
point of view
Transportation cost of unit of energy increases due to
harsh and remote environment to be crossed
Advanced engineering and technology is required for
construction and operation
AND EXPORT FROM ARCTIC REGIONS?
Snamprogetti 10
October 19th, 2005
56 GAS PIPELINE
RUSSIA - CHINA - JAPAN
Western Siberia - Shanghai
BOLSHEKHETSKAYA
SHANGHAI
O
b
s
k
a
y
a
G
u
b
a
Western Siberia
Russian section 2700 km
Chinese section 3900 km
56 GAS PIPELINE
RUSSIA - CHINA - JAPAN
Western Siberia - Shanghai
BOLSHEKHETSKAYA
SHANGHAI
O
b
s
k
a
y
a
G
u
b
a
Western Siberia
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
P_km
A relevant example:
STUDY ON LD.HC.HP.HG. GAS
PIPELINE FROM NORTH-EAST
RUSSIA TO CHINA
Permafrost
Bottom roughness
Seismic activity
Slope stability
Hydro-geo hazards
POTENTIAL PROJECT SCENARIO:
LD.HC.HP.HG. GAS PIPELINES CROSSING HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT
Snamprogetti 11
October 19th, 2005
Investment and
operating costs for
HP (advanced
X100), 6600 km
pipeline for 3010
9
Sm
3
/y.
78,9
5,8
9,2
6,1
Invest.+ Oper. Costs 14152 10
6

Operating Costs 1433 10
6

ATCI 0,0600
/m
3
HP 56 inch Single Pipeline X 100 (fuel 0,075 $/m
3
)
%
%
%
%
Pipeline Investment
Station Investment
Fuel
Other Operating Costs
Pipeline Investment
Station Investment
Fuel
Other Operating Costs
LD.HC.HP.HG. GAS PIPELINE FROM NORTH-EAST RUSSIA TO CHINA:
A COMPETITIVE OPTION FOR GAS-TO-MARKET
Snamprogetti 12
October 19th, 2005
Location of proposed Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline
30 ND 1200 km
NEW ARCTIC PIPELINES
Snamprogetti 13
October 19th, 2005
Location of proposed Alaska
Highway Pipeline
42 ND - 2810 km e 140 bar
Snamprogetti 14
October 19th, 2005
Poronaysk
Nogliki
Piltun
Okha
Nikolayevsk -
na-Amure
Aleksandrovsk -
Sakhalinskiy
Yuzhno -
Sakhalinsk
Sakhali
n
Island
Russia
Katangli
DeKastri
Nysh
Detail 2
Detail 1
Boatasyn
Gas Compression
(BS#2)
172 km Piltun
shoreline to
OPF
636 km
48 Gas Line
Oil Booster
(BS#2)
636 km
24 Oil Line
Detail 3
Sakhalin Phase II Development Project
Onshore Pipelines Project
The development includes :
- 20 OD oil and 20 OD gas pipelines from Piltun
Shoreline-Tie in Point, through a route about 172 km long,
to OPF. Booster Compression Station in proximity of the
Landfall of Lunskoje pipelines;
- 24 OD oil and 48 OD pipelines from OPF,
through a route about 636 km long, to LNG plant
and Oil Export Terminal.
The scope of work includes:
- Development of fault crossing routing, alternative crossing
concepts, and design assessment alternatives
- Basic design including strength capacity assessment,
pipeline response analysis, selection and qualification of
crossing concepts
- Detailed design of 24 fault crossing
Snamprogetti 15
October 19th, 2005
Detail 1
20 Gas Line
20 Oil Line
41 km PA-B to shore
17.5 km PA-A to shore
41 km
shore to
Boatasyn
Boatas
PA-
B
PA-
A
14 Oil Line
14 Gas Line
Onshore Tie -in point
with pig traps for all
pipelines
20 Oil
172 km
Piltun
shoreline
to OPF
Detail 2
4.5 glycol
return
LUN-
A
Future
pipeline
OPF
Booster /
Compression Station
No.1 (BS#1)
30 multiphase
30 multiphase
20 Gas line
24 Oil
48 Gas
13.5 km LUN -A to shore
7.5 km shore to OPF
LNG
Tanker
Non ice strengthened
2 ice breaker support vessels
LNG
Plant Oil Export
Terminal
36
Loading
Line
5.5
km
Tanker of
Opportunity
Domestic Supply
Off-Take
Detail 3
24 Oil & Condensate Line
48
Gas Line
636 km OPF
to OET
Sakhalin Phase II Development Project
Offshore Pipeline & Cables project
The SAKHALIN II Project is a development of
Offshore oil and gas field on the north-eastern shelf of Sakhalin Island,
Russia. There are two production fields associated with the project.
Piltun-Astokhshoye (PA) is an oil field with associated gas and Lunskoye
(LUN) is a gas field with associated condensate.
The offshore pipeline system includes:
Piltun Location
14-inch ND x 17.5 km Gas Pipeline Expansion Spool, J-Tube
pull-in from the existing PA-A platform to shore
14-inch ND x 17.5 km Oil Pipeline, Expansion Spool, & J-Tube
pull-in from the existing PA-A platform to shore
14-inch ND x 41 km Gas Pipeline & Expansion Spool from PA-
B to shore
14-inch ND x 41 km Oil Pipeline & Expansion Spool from PA-B
to shore
Lunskoye Location
2 x 30-inch ND x 13.5 km Multiphase Pipelines & Expansion
Spools from LUN-A to shore
1 x 4.5-inch x 13.5 km MEG from the OPF landfall to LUN-A
Two power / telecom cables x 13.5 km from the OPF landfall
to LUN-A including J-tube pull-in
Aniva Bay Location
1 x 30-inch x 5 km Oil Export Pipeline from the OET landfall to
the TLU
1 x 10-inch x 1 Outfall Pipeline from the OET
One power / telecom cable from the OET landfall to the TLU,
including J-Tube pull-in
Snamprogetti 16
October 19th, 2005
DESIGN PROCESS
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti 17
October 19th, 2005
( Shallow to Ultra-deep water trunklines for international gas network.
Trunklines (rigid steel), long (~ 10
2
km) and generally large diameter
(> 16 OD), transporting hydrocarbons mostly sweet gas at high
pressure (> 10 MPa).
( Inter-field (special) pipelines /flowlines for shallow to ultra-deep
waters offshore production systems.
Interfield (rigid or flexible) pipelines (flowlines), short (~ 10
1
km) and
in general small diameter (< 16 OD) pipelines transporting single or
multiphase often untreated and sour hydrocarbons.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
KEY ISSUES FOR DEEP WATERS TRUNKLINES
Materials & Line Pipe Technology
Installation Vessels & Equipment
OFFSHORE PIPELINES: THE NEW CHALLENGES
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
DEEP WATER FIELD DEVELOPMENT
Including Including:
Drilling and completion systems
Surface and subsea structures
Floating and subsea production systems
and and
RISERS, FLOWLINES, AND EXPORT PIPELINES
(SPECIAL e. g. insulated, C.R.A., P.I.P., etc.)
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Deep Waters vs. Shallow to Medium Waters
Technical Challenges
DESIGN - thick line pipe, high grade steel
- reliability-based design criteria
- survey
CONSTRUCTION - lay equipment
- intervention work technology
OPERATION - inspection, maintenance
- repair
Technical Feasibility
Bottom roughness, geo-hazards, lay-ability, pipeline integrity criteria
Snamprogetti 21
October 19th, 2005
2) GREEN STREAM PIPELINE
KP0 KP100 KP200 KP300 KP400 KP500 KP600 KP700 KP800 KP900 KP1000 KP1100 KP1200 KP1300
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
200000 E 400000 E 600000 E 800000 E 1000000 E 1200000 E
2
4
0
0
0
0
0

N
2
6
0
0
0
0
0

N
2
8
0
0
0
0
0

N
2
4
0
0
0
0
0

N
2
6
0
0
0
0
0

N
2
8
0
0
0
0
0

N
-4000 m
-3500 m
-3000 m
-2500 m
-2000 m
-1500 m
-1000 m
-500 m
0 m
500 m
1000 m
4) IRAN to INDIA PIPELINE
3) ALGERIA to SPAIN PIPELINE
Tuapse
Izobilnoye
Tuapse
Izobilnoye
1) BLUE STREAM Pipeline
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
traditional and challenging offshore pipeline projects;
(ultra-deep, harsh environments, bottom roughness,
geo hazards, severe service conditions etc)
frontier areas pipeline projects;
(arctic and sub-arctic, severe seismic environments etc)
CURRENT PIPELINE SYSTEMS PROJECTS CURRENT PIPELINE SYSTEMS PROJECTS
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Harsh Environments
Ice gouging in the shallow water areas ( < 25 - 30 m )
Severe seismic environment
Rationalization of pipeline system design philosophy
Limit state based design to optimise offshore pipeline system
from the technical and economical point of view in relation to
hazards
Advanced technology for design, line pipe fabrication,
construction and Inspection/Monitoring and Repair
DESIGN ISSUES FOR OFFSHORE PIPELINES IN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT DESIGN ISSUES FOR OFFSHORE PIPELINES IN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
Snamprogetti 24
October 19th, 2005
OUTLINE OUTLINE
DESIGN PROCESS
EXERCISES
Snamprogetti 25
October 19th, 2005
Designer must guarantee the compliance of the whole system
with the safety targets and standards, with design
responsibilities in charge to other functions
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITERIA AND PHILOSOPHIES
(with reference to rules, standards, contractual requirements)
HSE Plan HSE Plan
DEVELOPMENT SAFETY ANALYSES AND REVIEWS
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
HSE REVIEWS HSE REVIEWS
Procedures Procedures WHAT / IF ANALYSIS WHAT / IF ANALYSIS
EVALUATION OF RESIDUAL RISK
COMPARISON WITH ESTABLISHED CRITERIA
QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS
REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR
INSPECTION AND INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE
Pipeline System Design Philosophy
Snamprogetti 26
October 19th, 2005
92 148 Fittings
31 39 Flexible lines
65 209 Steel lines
No. of Incidents Resulting
in a Loss of Containment
No. of Incidents
to Operating Pipelines
N/A N/A 1 SPM (single point mooring)
9,3x10
-5
289 522 27
Mid Line (outside Platform
or Well Safety Zone)
2.3x10
-3
2 586 6 Within Subsea Well Safety Zone
1.1x10
-3
16 776 18 Within Platform Safety Zone
7.2x10
-4
16 776 12 Riser
N/A N/A 1 Platform
Leak Frequency
(km-year)
Operating Experience
(km-years)
No. of Incidents Resulting
in a Loss of Containment
20 % 9 % 14 % 57 %
Rupture > 80 mm 20 - 80 mm < 20 mm
Equivalent hole diameter (mm)
INCIDENTS TO OPERATING LINES
LEAK FREQUENCY FOR OPERATING STEEL LINES
EQUIVALENT HOLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR OPERATING STEEL LINES
P
A
R
L
O
C
2
0
0
1
Snamprogetti 27
October 19th, 2005
ANALYSES OF 30 YEARS OF INCIDENT DATA
- European Gas Pipeline Data Group
- Western European Cross-Country Pipeline
- US Department of Tranportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special
Program Administration
show US and European pipelines becoming safer.
Gas pipeline annual failure rate from 0.81.5 to 0.150.21 x 10
-3
/ km-year
Oil pipeline annual failure rate from 1.21.8 to 0.300.60 x 10
-3
/ km-year
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE
Snamprogetti 28
October 19th, 2005
PIPELINE SAFETY DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
in accordance with DNV OS-F101, 2000
Fluid Classification
Location Class Definition
Serviceability vs. Ultimate Limit States
Safety Class Approach
Safety Targets from Industry Standards,
Failure Statistics and Current Design Criteria vs. Performance.
Snamprogetti 29
October 19th, 2005
FLUID CLASSIFICATION
Gases or liquids, not specifically identified in table, shall be
classified in the category containing substances most similar in
hazard potential to those quoted. If the fluid category is not clear,
the most hazardous category shall be assumed.
E
Snamprogetti 30
October 19th, 2005
LOCATION CLASS DEFINITION
in accordance WITH DNV OS-F101, 2000
Snamprogetti 31
October 19th, 2005
SAFETY CLASS APPROACH
Safety Class LOW where failure implies low risks of human
injury and minor environmental and
economic consequences.
Safety Class NORMAL for conditions where failure implies risk
of human injury, significant
environmental pollution or very high
Safety Class HIGH for conditions where failure implies high
risk of human injury, significant
environmental pollution or very high
Snamprogetti 32
October 19th, 2005
IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY CLASSES
Snamprogetti 33
October 19th, 2005
TARGET SAFETY LEVELS
Snamprogetti 34
October 19th, 2005
IMR
The ideal safety path
Snamprogetti 35
October 19th, 2005
from prescriptive to goal settings design
Hazard Identification
The HAZID Analysis shall be carried out by the Project design
specialists in order to:
identify novel or unforeseen sources of hazard;
verify that the hazards and causes are credible;
confirm controls already adopted by the Project;
comment on Occurrence and Severity ratings;
reply to recommendations put forward during the study.
Snamprogetti 36
October 19th, 2005
from prescriptive to goal settings design
design loads identification
Design Standard Application
Hazard Identification
Residual Risks Evaluation
Residual Risks Comparison
with Project Acceptance Criteria
Acceptable?
Project Design
Incorporate
Risk Reduction Measures
Yes
No
Environmental Loads
Accidental Loads
Construction Loads
Other Loads
HSE Objective
Operational Loads
SafetyStudies
Design Standards
Accidental Loads
Anchoring
Fishing Activities
Environmental Loads (Freq <10
-2
)
Vessel Impact
Dropped Objects
Sinking
Grounding
Safety Studies
Snamprogetti 37
October 19th, 2005
OFFHSORE PIPELINE SAFETY
A worldwide attention to sustainable risk in a context of increasingly
congestioned/interfering-with-human-activities pipeline system for gathering and
transportation of hydrocarbons;
The ageing of important offshore pipeline systems calling for increased inspection
and, sometimes, rehabilitation with new operational strategies beyond those
envisaged at the design stage;
A general interest in developing International Standards and design guidelines
reflecting current pipeline technology and complying with quantitative safety
targets.
Show that the performance of modern pipeline systems, built during the last two
decades and designed in compliance with design formats and criteria in force
since the Sixties, over 30 years of operation is satisfactory: 10
-3
10
-4
misfit /
year-km.
Market growing, strategical services security of supply need high performances.
Can we do better or at least the same for Arctic and Sub-arctic Pipelines?
Performance studies based on both failure statistics and analytical approaches
motivated by:
Snamprogetti 38
October 19th, 2005
DESIGN PROCESS
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti 39
October 19th, 2005
from exploration through production to export
FIELDS OF APPLICATION
Snamprogetti 40
October 19th, 2005
Pipeline Design: a multidisciplinary approach
Snamprogetti 41
October 19th, 2005
ON ON- -SHORE PIPELINE DESIGN SHORE PIPELINE DESIGN
PIPELINE ROUTE
SELECTION AND STUDIES
BASIC AND DETAILED
DESIGN
ENGINEERING DURING
CONSTRUCTION
DATA COLLECTION, FIELD
INVESTIGATIONS AND TESTS
SIZING OF LINE PIPES
DESIGN OF PIPELINES AND
RELATED CIVIL AND
MECHANICAL WORKS
DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS
FOR PERMITS AND
AUTHORIZATIONS
DOCUMENTS FOR
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
DESIGN OF SPECIAL SECTIONS
MATERIAL LIST AND
SPECIFICATIONS
DESIGN FOR SPECIFIC
SITE CONDITIONS
ASSISTANCE DURING
CONSTRUCTION
LAND RESTORATION
WORKS
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS
PIPELINE CORRIDOR
DEFINITION
ROUTE SURVEYS
ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL
AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS
(CODES AND LAWS,
HYDROGEOLOGY, SEISMIC
RISKS, MASTER PLANS,
PROTECTED AREAS,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
EVALUATION
LAND RESTORATION
Snamprogetti 42
October 19th, 2005
ON ON- -SHORE PIPELINE DESIGN IN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT SHORE PIPELINE DESIGN IN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
Pipeline design shall be assessed in relation to the permafrost
related hazards, envisaged along the onshore pipeline routed,
particularly:
Permafrost condition and relevant phenomena (thermo-karsts etc.)
site specific
Seasonal variation at soil surface and impact on pipeline support
and/or trench solution
Pipeline response analysis under environmental conditions
Strength and Deformation Capacity vs. Ordinary and Extreme Loads
aiming to define steel grade and material requirements in relation to
longitudinal deformability
Snamprogetti 43
October 19th, 2005
Pipeline design of a gas pipeline in the Arctic and Sub-arctic
Environment can be pursued by an aboveground or underground
solution, particularly:
The aboveground solution offers the following advantages:
preserving the tundra upper cover, the possibility to create reliable
construction design, the accessibility for inspection and control.
Different types of aboveground pipeline solutions are utilized, at
present the pile supported pipelines are typical.
As regards the underground solution, the reliable operation of
underground gas pipelines is limited to engineering solutions
meeting real conditions and factors affecting the area.
Snamprogetti 44
October 19th, 2005
Both solutions are generally adopted along the pipeline route
depending on:
Environmental data mainly air temperature and permafrost condition
along the onshore pipeline route;
Geotechnical data along the onshore pipeline route;
Transported fluid parameters, gas composition and gas supply and
demand requirements affecting gas hydraulics i.e. inner pressure
and temperature distribution along the pipeline route;
Selection of pipeline installation technique;
Availability of construction equipment.
Gas transportation criteria can meet low temperature requirements,
while permafrost condition in relation to seismic and geotechnical
morphological conditions will address whether aboveground or
underground.
Snamprogetti 45
October 19th, 2005
PIPELINE ROUTE
SELECTION
ROUTE SURVEYS AND
DATA EVALUATION
LINE PIPE SIZING
MATERIALS AND
COATING SELECTION
TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT EVALUATION
STRESS ANALYSIS ON
IRREGULAR SEABEDS
FREE-SPAN DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS
LAYING ANALYSIS
STABILITY & SCOURING
ANALYSIS
OVERWEIGHTING &
TRENCHING
INTERVENTION WORKS
PIPELINE PROTECTION
CROSSINGS & TIE-INS
DOCUMENTATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS
ASSISTANCE DURING
CONSTRUCTION
AS-BUILT
VERIFICATIONS
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS
ASSISTANCE DURING
IN-SERVICE
INSPECTIONS
IN-SERVICE
CONDITION
EVALUATIONS
REPAIR
ASSESSMENTS
UPGRADING
ANALYSES
OFFSHORE PIPELINE DESIGN
FEASIBILITY STUDY
&
BASIC DESIGN
ENGINEERING
DURING
CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING
DURING
OPERATION
DETAILED
DESIGN
Snamprogetti 46
October 19th, 2005
OFFSHORE PIPELINE DESIGN IN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTS OFFSHORE PIPELINE DESIGN IN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTS
Pipeline burial requirements shall be optimized in relation to the iceberg
gouging hazards, envisaged along the offshore pipeline route, particularly:
Strength Capacity vs. Ordinary and Extreme Loads
Pipe Sectional Capacity under Increasing Bending Deformations
Resistance of Girth and Longitudinal Welds by Engineering
Criticality Assessment
Pipe Sectional Capacity to withstand Soil Vertical Pressure
Pipeline-Ice Keel Protection Requirements
Ice-soil Interaction analysis aiming to define:
Soil pressure against pipe wall as a function of depth in the
soil;
Soil deformation during ice keel-soil interaction;
Analysis of the pipeline response when subject to ice gouging.
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
PIPELINE SIZING AND FLOW
DATA GATHERING
AND PROCESSING
MATERIAL AND STEEL GRADE
OPERATIONAL DATA
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
OTHER DESIGN DATA
SURVEY DATA
WALL THICKNESS DESIGN
DESIGN BUCKLE ARRESTORS BUCKLING CHECK
DESIGN WEIGHT COATING
SELECT PRELINARY
CORROSION COATING
EVALUATE HAZARDS FISHING ETC.
PIPELINE STABILITY DESIGN
PIPELINE SPAN EVALUATION
FINALISE CORROSION COAT
THERMAL ANALYSIS
RISK ANALYSIS
PIPELINE LAYABILITY
AND LOCAL BUCKLING
IS LINE
LAYABLE
EVALUATE OTHER
PROTECTION NEEDS
IS LINE
SAFE
DESIGN ADDITIONAL
STABILISATION
TRENCH LINE
FOR 100 YEAR CASE
PREPARE ALL
SPECS/DRGS
PROCUR./TENDER DOCS
C.P. DESIGN/ANODES
EXPANSION LOOP DESIGN
VALVE STATION DESIGN
SHORE APPROACH DESIGN
STABILITY/PROTECTION
BY WEIGHT
COATING IS SUITABLE
NO
YES
YES
NOT FOR
100 YEAR CASE
1/5 YEAR
CASE
IS WALL
SUITABLE
NO WALL
INCREASE
YES
YES
NO
IS TRENCHING
ACCEPTABLE
NO
NO
YES
YES
PIPELINE DESIGN
NO
Pipeline Design Process: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Horizontal and vertical stability are key
points for the offshore pipeline systems;
Different procedures in accordance with
internationally reconnaised code of
practice are available (AGA, DnV RP E
305);
Analysis capabilities include:
Quasi static; i.e. simplified approach
that simulates the effects of external
dynamic actions with static equilibrium
equations;
Full dynamic; i.e. complete simulation
of the effects of a external action
including dynamic effects due to the
wave cinematic, pipeline mass, etc.
Bi-dimensional models i.e. detailed
investigations for special section of
the pipeline with specific lateral
constraints ( e.g. crossings, subsea
structures, trench slope).
Hazard due to Surface Waves: Pipeline On-bottom Stability
Shallow water scenarios in arctic environments
i.e. Sakhalin Island, North Canada etc.
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Geo-morpho Hazardeous Environments
Troll Oil Pipeline: The deep depression in Troll Oil Pipeline: The deep depression in Fensfjorden Fensfjorden
Pipeline crossing uneven seabottom in the arctic
environment such as, for example, the Barents Sea.
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Geo-hazard due to Impact of the Turbidity Current
on the Pipeline
Troll Oil Pipeline: Pipeline route approaching the steep Troll Oil Pipeline: Pipeline route approaching the steep
wall and the bore hole exit wall and the bore hole exit
Deflected shape of a pipeline Deflected shape of a pipeline
impacted by turbidity currents impacted by turbidity currents
Pipeline laid on an unstable area in the arctic environment
such as, for example, the Barents Sea.
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
When the pipeline in operation
presents a sequence of suspended
lengths alternating between
contacts with the seabed or
artificial features, the assessment
of the structural integrity of the
pipeline under severe ground
motions due to earthquakes,
should account for cyclic bending
stresses which might exceed
environmental design criteria.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
223600 223700 223800 223900 224000 224100
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

S
t
r
e
s
s

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

(
M
P
a
)
-190
-180
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
223600. 223700. 223800. 223900. 224000. 224100. K. P.
D
e
p
t
h

[

m

]
Hazard due to Seismic Excitation
on Free Spanning Pipelines
Shallow water scenarios in arctic
environments i.e. Sakhalin Island,
North Canada etc..
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Sandwaves are mobile bedforms found in
strong tidal current regimes and moderate
wave environments.
Prediction of the sandwaves mobility during
the pipeline lifetime is required to prevent
and avoid unacceptable pipeline-seabed
configurations.
ACTIVITIES
Hydrodynamic modelling
Sediment transport modelling
Sandwave mobility modelling
Simulation of pipeline response
to a migrating wave pattern
Hazards due to Sand Wave Mobility
Pipeline Behaviour during Sand Wave Migration
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Pipe burial depth in the shore approach
is strongly dependent on the expected
coastal evolution. Specific studies are
carried out, based on historical data
(topographic surveys, satellite data
etc.) and numerical models, to forecast
the potential seabed and coastline
evolution. Short term and long term
modifications induced by normal and
extreme wave and current conditions
are simulated and the burial depth
needed to avoid possible exposure of
the pipe during its life is assessed.
Hazards due to Sea Bed Mobility in the Near Shore Areas
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Soil-pipe interaction is analysed
simulating the following basic
phenomena:
onset of scouring
free-span development
natural backfilling
pipe self-lowering and their
implications on pipe structural
integrity are evaluated.
A probabilistic approach is applied
for the risk assessment of free span
generation, free span lengths over
critical values, pipe self-burial
Typical outputs of the analysis are:
expected pipeline embedment as a function of time
maximum expected free span length
free span exposure as a function of length
Hazards due to Sea Bed Mobility ..
environments i.e. Sakhalin
Island, North Canada etc.
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Through the analysis of soil-pipe
interaction on erodible sea bed the SELF-
BURIAL attitude of the system is verified
and pipe weight can be optimised against
this phenomenon.
In the ZEEPIPE and EUROPIPE projects, in
the North Sea, this approach allowed a
save of about 100 Km of post-trenching
operations.
. Self-burial Evaluation
environments i.e. Sakhalin
Island, North Canada etc.
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
-1050
-1025
-1000
-975
-950
16700 16750 16800 16850 16900 16950 17000 17050 17100 17150 17200
KP DISTANCE
W
A
T
E
R

D
E
P
T
H

(
m
)
AS-LAID
OPERATING
Combined effects of pressure and
temperature may lead to instability
of the pipeline with consequent
lateral or vertical displacement.
Advanced analysis procedures are
necessary to analyze the
possibility of occurrence of the
phenomenon and to design the
required mitigation measures.
Analysis aims to characterize as follows:
definition of pipeline propensity to in-service buckling
definition of propensity to develop the buckle in the lateral or vertical
direction
definition of post-buckle configuration in terms of displacements and
stresses
3D Finite element non linear analysis
Hazard due to Severe Operating Condition
Snamprogetti 57
October 19th, 2005
Sea Bottom/Temperature Profile
-1780.0
-1680.0
-1580.0
-1480.0
-1380.0
-1280.0
-1180.0
-1080.0
-980.0
-880.0
-780.0
-680.0
-580.0
-480.0
-380.0
-280.0
-180.0
-80.0
9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 25000 27000 29000
Pipeline X Coordinate (m)
W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
D
i
f
f
.

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
C
)

Pipe OD 610.0 mm
Pipe Wall Thickness 31.8mm (D/t 19.2)
Pipe Submerged Weight (empty) 1.5 kN/m
Pipe Submerged Weight (operating) 1.95 kN/m
Axial - Lateral Friction 0.5 - 0.7

Residual Lay Pull 400 kN
Operating Pressure 25.0 MPa at 0.0 m
Max/Min Diff. Temperature 30.1/7.9 C
Pipe Temperature Profile during Operation:
Thermal Expansion vs. Bottom Roughness
Tuapse
Izobilnoye
Tuapse
Izobilnoye
BLUE STREAM PIPELINES
Hazard due to Severe Operating Condition
Snamprogetti 58
October 19th, 2005
-1234
-1229
-1224
-1219
-1214
-1209
-1204
18100 18150 18200 18250 18300
Buckle 3
-1318
-1313
-1308
-1303
-1298
-1293
19100 19150 19200 19250 19300 19350
Buckle 4
-864
-859
-854
-849
-844
-839
-834
-829
13900 13950 14000 14050 14100
Buckle 2
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950
-1727
-1726
-1725
-1724
-1723
-1722
-1721
28300 28350 28400 28450 28500 28550
Buckle 6
-1382
-1380
-1378
-1376
-1374
-1372
-1370
19950 20000 20050 20100 20150 20200
Buckle 5
Buckle 1
Pipeline X Coordinate (m) 2D Analysis - Pipeline Vertical Configuration Axial friction 0.5 - Lateral friction 0.7
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

Z

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

(
m
)
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000 27000 28000 29000
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
2D Analysis - Pressure
2D Analysis - Temperature
Pipeline X Coordinate (m) 2D Analysis - Pipeline Vertical Configuration Axial friction 0.5 - Lateral friction 0.7
-3.0E+6
-2.0E+6
-1.0E+6
0.0E+0
1.0E+6
2.0E+6
3.0E+6
4.0E+6
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000 27000 28000 29000
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
l

B
e
n
d
i
n
g

S
M
2

(
N
*
m
)
Temperature - 2D Response
2D FE Analysis
to define how
safely the pipeline
copes with bottom
roughness
Snamprogetti 59
October 19th, 2005
-1425.0
-1400.0
-1375.0
-1350.0
-1325.0
-1300.0
-1275.0
-1250.0
-1225.0
-1200.0
-1175.0
-1150.0
17650 17900 18150 18400 18650 18900 19150 19400 19650 19900 20150 20400 20650
Pipeline X Co-ordinate (m)
W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Y

C
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

(
m
)
Fully 3-dimensional FE Analysis to define where and how the pipeline might
develop upheaval buckling at the most pronounced undulations
Advanced engineering analyses have to be carried to minimize mitigation measures
against severe operating conditions in arctic environment
Snamprogetti 60
October 19th, 2005
Buried Pipelines subject to Seismic Travelling Waves
BODY WAVES SURFACE WAVES

(A) P-waves or Compression Waves (B) S-waves or Shear Waves

(C) Rayleigh Waves (D) Love Waves

Waves Types
Pipe Configuration
Seismic Excitation
Pipeline Response
Snamprogetti 61
October 19th, 2005
Strike-slip
Reverse-slip
Surface earthquake fault
Permanent Ground Deformation Active Faults
Snamprogetti 62
October 19th, 2005
Fault Displacements
Permanent Ground Deformation Active Faults
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-5 0 5 10 15
Perpendicular Distance from Fault Scarp (meters x V)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

F
a
u
l
t

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
e
t
e
r
s

x

V
)
V
0.2 V
3 V 4 V 1.5 V
V is the vertical displacement
reported from field measurement.
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-5 0 5 10 15
F
a
u
l
t

N
o
r
m
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
e
t
e
r
s

x

V
)
V
3 V
The fault normal displacement, FN, is defined as a function of
the vertical displacement, V, reported from field
measurement.
Folding and/or
distributed shear
Fault slip on
main fault
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-10 -5 0 5 10
F
a
u
l
t

P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
e
t
e
r
s

x

F
P
)
2 meters, regardless of
displacement
FP is the displacement parallel to the
fault strike and is independent of the
observed vertical displacement.
FP
Snamprogetti 63
October 19th, 2005
Pipeline Response
through FE Models
Pipeline crossing Active Faults
Differential Displacement (m)
A
x
i
a
l

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
-
)
High risk seismic area, see for
example, Sakhalin Island
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Hazard due to Ice Gouging
( )
H
D H
n
soil
e D H D u
= = = 0 . 1 Depth Burial Pipe , Depth Gouge Ice

Ice gouging morphology and pipeline threats from ice Ice gouging morphology and pipeline threats from ice
keel gouging soil keel gouging soil
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Iceberg grounding the Iceberg grounding the seabottom seabottom
The effect of the gouging ice on a
pipeline depends on the level of
the pipeline with respect to the
gouge, and on the deformation of
the soil as the ice cuts the gouge.
Within that field, one can
distinguish three zones:
An uppermost zone 1, within
which the soil is first carried up
into the mound in front of the ice,
and then sideways into the berm;
An intermediate zone 2, in which
the soil is deformed plastically
under the mound, but ultimately
continues under the ice; and
A lowest zone 3, in which the soil
passes under the ice, but is
subject to stresses transmitted
from zone 2.
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Max bending strain vs. soil cover, ice keel gouge depth and soil Max bending strain vs. soil cover, ice keel gouge depth and soil lateral resistance lateral resistance
Hazard due to Ice Gouging - Development of bending deformation
Pipeline and soil displacements Pipeline and soil displacements
due to ice keel gouging in zone 2 due to ice keel gouging in zone 2
2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Gouge Depth = 2.1 m - Qu = 250 kN/m
H (m)
S
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
Snamprogetti 67
October 19th, 2005
Bending and deformation Bending and deformation
capacity of pipes subject to capacity of pipes subject to
axial force, inner pressure axial force, inner pressure
and bending, and bending,
Results implemented in Results implemented in
DNV OS DNV OS- -F101 local F101 local
buckling criterion buckling criterion
0.500
HOTPIPE 2 - EXPERIMENTAL TESTS - PIPE SPECIMEN NO. 3
BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP
0.00E+00
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
6.00E+05
7.00E+05
8.00E+05
9.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.10E+06
1.20E+06
1.30E+06
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450
AVERAGE CURVATURE (1/m)
B
E
N
D
I
N
G

M
O
M
E
N
T

(
N
m
)
T3 Pipe specimen t = 16.2 mm, , fo =0.0%, SMYS = 480 MPa, Mean D FE Mesh, Mid Section,
T3 Pipe specimen t = 16.2 mm, , fo =0.0%, SMYS = 480 MPa, Mean D FE Mesh, Mid Section, Triggering Force
Specimen 3 - Experimental Test
Strength capacity assessment using advanced FEM analyses and Tests
Snamprogetti 68
October 19th, 2005
Pipeline Design in Tundra Areas
Frost Heave
Snamprogetti 69
October 19th, 2005
Thermal Analysis
Jun
jul
sep
oct
nov
dec
jan
feb
mar
apr
may
Jun
aug
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Month
M
o
n
t
h
l
y

M
e
a
n

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

S
l
e
i
p
n
e
r

E
a
s
i
n
g
t
o
n

(
C
)
Pipeline Sector from KP 444 to KP 500 Pipeline Sector from KP 500 to KP 524 Pipeline Sector from KP 524 to KP 544 Assumed Temperature Profile
WINTER SEASON
MONTHLY MEAN TEMPERATURE
TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR
DIFFERENT OPERATING
CONDITIONS
Pipeline Design in Tundra Areas
Snamprogetti 70
October 19th, 2005
The heave is not only
caused by freezing of the
in-situ pore water but also
by water flow to a freezing
front (segregational heave).
This water flow is induced
by a suction gradient that
develops in the frozen soil.
The frost heave after the
development of ice bulb is
dependent on the value of
the segregation potential
SP
o
.
The segregation potential is
in general obtained from
laboratory tests.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (month)
G
r
o
u
n
d

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
C
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Pipe Internal Temperature -4C
Time (month)
S
e
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
e
a
v
e

(
m
)
Frost Heave Analysis
) (
) (
T grad e SP v
t P a
o
e
=

Snamprogetti 71
October 19th, 2005
Differential Settlement due Frost Heave
Pipeline Design in Arctic Environment
Snamprogetti 72
October 19th, 2005
DESIGN PROCESS
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti 73
October 19th, 2005
At the end of the design phase:
Diameter, Thickness and material
Pipeline route
Construction technology
Intervention works
-Before construction
-After construction
Operating philosophy
-Inspection and monitoring plan
-Damage evaluation
-Pipeline repair
Safety objective met
for all relevant limit
states
Pipeline Inspection and Maintenance Philosophy
Snamprogetti 74
October 19th, 2005
Inspection/Monitoring Requirements
The objective is to define:
How How to inspect
What What (and Where Where) to inspect
Emergency procedures Emergency procedures
& &
Intervention Intervention measures measures
When When to inspect
Based on Based on
HAZID, Risk HAZID, Risk
Analysis Analysis
and inputs from and inputs from
design design
General Criteria General Criteria
Based on inspection
results and damage
evaluation
Snamprogetti 75
October 19th, 2005
Earthquakes vs. Earthquakes vs.
Geo Geo- -hazards hazards
Possible occurring earthquakes may trigger
geo-hazards events that may threaten the
pipeline structural integrity. The following
geo-hazards are of major concern:
mass flows
- fault displacements
- soil slides and slumps
- turbidity currents
- Travelling waves are usually less severe that
geo-hazards
Pipeline geometry & configuration
Internal Inspection Internal Inspection
(IMU, (IMU, Caliper Caliper pig) pig)
Condition of area around PL:
Visual Inspection Visual Inspection
Leak detection:
LDS/SCADA system LDS/SCADA system
Snamprogetti 76
October 19th, 2005
Arctic Hazards: Arctic Hazards:
The following geo-hazards are of major
concern:
Ice gouging
Differential settlement
Erosion at landfall
Pipeline geometry & configuration
Internal Inspection Internal Inspection
(IMU, (IMU, Caliper Caliper pig) pig)
Condition of area around PL:
Visual Inspection Visual Inspection
Leak detection:
LDS/SCADA system LDS/SCADA system
Snamprogetti 77
October 19th, 2005
Design Philosophy
DFI
As-laid Configuration
Pre-Commissioning
Misfit? Leak?
Safety & Availability
Accidental Scenarios &
Extreme Environmental
Loads
RFO
As-Built Configuration
Ordinary Inspection
(External)
Continuous Leak
Detection (SCADA)
Inspect?
Misfit?
Leak?
STOP
Maintenance & Repair
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
Survey Data
Survey Data
Extraordinary
Inspection (External
&/or Internal)
Pipeline System
Inspection Procedures
vs.
Emergency Response
Snamprogetti 78
October 19th, 2005
Pipeline System
Maintenance and
Repair Procedures
Leak
Misfit w/out Leak
Dent Anodes etc. Anti
Corrosion
Coating
Repair (section
replacement)
Pipeline Repair
Repair?
Evaluation Criteria
(Safety,
Availability)
Ordinary
Inspection,
Leak detection
(SCADA)
Shutdown
?
Trenching,
Gravel
dumping,
Reinforcement
Section
Replacement
Pre-commissioning
&
Commissioning
YES
NO
YES
NO
Medium/large
Leak or rupture
Small Leak
Shutdown
Damage
Location
Damage
Location
Snamprogetti 79
October 19th, 2005
External ROV Survey
Shape of pipe anomaly as predicted
by FE Analysis
Shape of pipe anomaly as measured
by Internal Inspection
Pipeline Monitoring and Maintenance .
Structural Integrity Diagnosis before . Repair
Snamprogetti 80
October 19th, 2005
DESIGN PROCESS
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
LIMIT STATE BASED DESIGN
Design criteria currently in use are based on Design criteria currently in use are based on
allowable stresses allowable stresses and weakly related to actual and weakly related to actual
failure modes. failure modes.
Limit state design Limit state design adopts functional relations adopts functional relations
describing actual failure modes in a format describing actual failure modes in a format
expliciting expliciting load and resistance factors and refers to a load and resistance factors and refers to a
rationally based safety philosophy weighting each rationally based safety philosophy weighting each
design issue in relation to type of failure and nature design issue in relation to type of failure and nature
of consequences and reflecting quantified safety of consequences and reflecting quantified safety
targets in relevant partial safety factors. targets in relevant partial safety factors.
Snamprogetti 82
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Deterministic vs. Reliability Approach
Reliability
Methods
Deterministic
Approach
Limit State Based
Design (LSBD)
Working Stress
Design (WSD)
Load and Resistance
Factored Design (LRFD)
Probabilistic Based
Design
Snamprogetti 83
October 19th, 2005
Reliability Based Limit States Design Pursuing given Safety Target
LIMIT STATES DESIGN FORMAT
L
d
(
,
F,
C ,
S
) < R
d
(
SC ,
m
)
where:
L
d
design load effect function
R
d
design resistance function
C
condition load factor
environmental load factor
F
functional load factor
S
system safety factor
resistance usage factor

Reliability Index
Standard Deviation
Probability Distribution
of Safety Margin
(R-L)
1.E-07
1,.E-06
1.,E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Reliability Index,
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

F
a
i
l
u
r
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Resistance
Distribution, R
Load
Distribution, L
Nominal Load
Nominal Resistance
Nominal
Safety
Domain
f
L
>1 f
R
<1
Snamprogetti 84
October 19th, 2005
Calibration of Limit State Based Design Criteria
through Reliability Analysis
Limit State g(x) = R - L
Criteria, Decision
Loads, L
Long term
Distr., Risk
Uncertainty f
x
(x)
Failure Probability
Target Safety
Capacity, R
FEM, Test
Tools
Consequences
( ) [ ] ( )
( )
= =
0 x g
f
dx x f 0 x g P P
Snamprogetti 85
October 19th, 2005
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS): ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS):
Bursting Bursting
Collapse Collapse
Propagating Buckling Propagating Buckling
Local Buckling due to Combined Loading Local Buckling due to Combined Loading
Fracture/Plastic Collapse Fracture/Plastic Collapse
Ratcheting Ratcheting (Accumulation of plastic deformation) (Accumulation of plastic deformation)
SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES (SLS): SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES (SLS):
Ovalization Ovalization Limit due to Bending Limit due to Bending
FATIGUE LIMIT STATES (FLS) FATIGUE LIMIT STATES (FLS)
ACCIDENTAL LIMIT STATES (ALS) ACCIDENTAL LIMIT STATES (ALS)
Limit States/Failure Modes as per DNV OS-F101
Snamprogetti 86
October 19th, 2005
Relevant Limit States (Loads vs. Failure Mechanisms)
Internal pressure Bursting
Fracture/Plastic collapse of defected long. welds
External pressure Collapse
Buckle propagation and/or arrest
Combined loads Local buckling
Fracture/Plastic collapse of defected girth welds
Variable loads Fatigue
Operating loads Global buckling
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Ultimate Limit States
Failure Failure occurs when internal actions are no longer able to equilibrate occurs when internal actions are no longer able to equilibrate
external loads and consequently external loads and consequently deformations are uncontrolled by any deformations are uncontrolled by any
boundary boundary
Deformation due to external loads are controlled or imposed by Deformation due to external loads are controlled or imposed by
external boundaries external boundaries and and failure failure occurs at deformation level which activate occurs at deformation level which activate
material (ductile tearing, cracking etc.) or shape instabilities material (ductile tearing, cracking etc.) or shape instabilities ( (ovalization ovalization, ,
wrinkling and/or bulging/kinking etc.) wrinkling and/or bulging/kinking etc.)
Ultimate Limit States (ULS) Ultimate Limit States (ULS) for a pipeline entail structural damages which for a pipeline entail structural damages which
will give rise to the release of the transported fluid into the will give rise to the release of the transported fluid into the external external
environment or the flooding of the line, both in the short and l environment or the flooding of the line, both in the short and long term ong term
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Ultimate Limit States
Longitudinal failure Longitudinal failure modes modes may develop in the presence of longitudinal may develop in the presence of longitudinal
defects which cause the reduction of strength capacity for the c defects which cause the reduction of strength capacity for the containment ontainment
of internal pressure of internal pressure
Circumferential failure modes Circumferential failure modes are associated with excessive longitudinal are associated with excessive longitudinal
stresses and strains caused by external loads stresses and strains caused by external loads
In relation to geo In relation to geo- -morpho morpho hazard, hazard, circumferential failure modes circumferential failure modes due to due to
bending effects are of major concern. bending effects are of major concern.
The most critical condition for the The most critical condition for the localisation localisation of deformation is associated of deformation is associated
with the development of with the development of bending strains bending strains which may be either unbounded or which may be either unbounded or
limited by external boundaries. limited by external boundaries.
Sometimes circumferential (and longitudinal) failure modes are a Sometimes circumferential (and longitudinal) failure modes are activated by ctivated by
the the localization of deformation in fully restrained conditions localization of deformation in fully restrained conditions due to high due to high
temperature in combination with high pressure temperature in combination with high pressure
Snamprogetti 89
October 19th, 2005
Target safety level (P
f
T
) According to DNV OS-F101
Snamprogetti 90
October 19th, 2005
Relevant Limit States (Failure Statistics)
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
47.1%
0.0%
23.5%
0.0%
29.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
0.4%
99.2%
0.2% 0.0% 0.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
Total incident by cause in the
midline zone (Offshore gas
pipelines - Gulf of Mexico
experience before 1980 - OD>20),
Ref./VERITAS, 1980/
Total incident by cause in the
safety zone (Offshore gas pipelines
- Gulf of Mexico experience before
1980 - OD>20),
Ref./VERITAS, 1980/
Snamprogetti 91
October 19th, 2005
Reliability Based Load and Resistance Factored Design (LRFD)
DESIGN CHECK (P
f
T
=10
-3
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stress:
L
,
R
D
e
n
s
i
t
y

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
:

f
L
(
L
)
,

f
R
(
R
)
Load
Resistance
m;
C,
A,
U
Mean Value
Load
Characteristic
Load/load effect

F
;
E
;
C
Mean Value
Resistance
Characteristic
Resistance
SC
Design Value
Load and Resistance
SC m
C
d
CA A A E E C F F L C d
d d
R
R
L L L L L
R L

=
+ + = =
Snamprogetti 92
October 19th, 2005
TENSILE MODE LIMIT STATES (fracture or plastic collapse of
girth welds, circumferential flaw up to through thickness then
opening mode)
COMPRESSIVE MODE LIMIT STATES (wrinkling, out-bulging
and formation of a longitudinal flaw, through thickness, due to
circumferential tearing instability of line pipe material)
LSD in the Offshore Pipeline Technology
Relevant Limit States for Offshore Pipelines In Arctic Environments
under Extreme Events (Ice Keel Gouging)
Snamprogetti 93
October 19th, 2005
OVALIZATION BUCKLING
-
NO PRESSURE
WRINKLING
-
INNER PRESSURE
PLASTIC STRAIN
PLOT
DEFORMED
PLOT
Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
Snamprogetti 94
October 19th, 2005
Bending and deformation Bending and deformation
capacity of pipes subject to capacity of pipes subject to
axial force, inner pressure axial force, inner pressure
and bending, and bending,
Results implemented in Results implemented in
DNV OS DNV OS- -F101 local F101 local
buckling criterion buckling criterion
0.500
HOTPIPE 2 - EXPERIMENTAL TESTS - PIPE SPECIMEN NO. 3
BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP
0.00E+00
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
6.00E+05
7.00E+05
8.00E+05
9.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.10E+06
1.20E+06
1.30E+06
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450
AVERAGE CURVATURE (1/m)
B
E
N
D
I
N
G

M
O
M
E
N
T

(
N
m
)
T3 Pipe specimen t = 16.2 mm, , fo =0.0%, SMYS = 480 MPa, Mean D FE Mesh, Mid Section,
T3 Pipe specimen t = 16.2 mm, , fo =0.0%, SMYS = 480 MPa, Mean D FE Mesh, Mid Section, Triggering Force
Specimen 3 - Experimental Test
Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
Snamprogetti 95
October 19th, 2005
LCC Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
1
)
1
2
b c
d
2
b c
d
p c
d
m sc
2
p c
d
m sc

|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
p
p
p
p
M
M
S
S

( )( )
>
>
< < +
< +
=
+ =
e i
e i
b
e i
h
h
y
u
c
0
3
2 ) (
60 / 0
60 / 15 45 / / 60 4 . 0
15 / ) 4 . 0 (
) 1 (
p p for
p p for
p
p p
q
t D for
t D for t D q
t D for q
f
f
h

( ) ( )
U Temp Y Y A U Temp U U b
f SMYS f f SMTS f
f
t D
t
f
t D
t
P
, ,
u
y
; ;
3
2
15 . 1
2
,
3
2 2
min = =
|
.
|
\
|

=
1.000
1.050
1.100
1.150
1.200
1.250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Outer diameter to thickness ratio (D/t)
f
l
o
w

s
t
r
e
s
s

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
,

c
qh = 0
qh = 0.2
qh = 0.4
qh = 0.6
qh = 0.8
f
u
/f
y
= 1.18
Effective axial force Strain hardening factor Differential Internal Pressure
Design Format
DNV OS-F101
where where
Snamprogetti 96
October 19th, 2005
DCC Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
d A A d E E d F C F D
d C,
D

, , ,

+ + =
( )
( )
>
<
|
.
|
\
|

=
=
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
|
.
|
\
|
60
60 20
100
20
0 . 1
20 0 . 1
2
5 1 78 . 0
0
0
0
0
max
,
2
3
,
,
t
D
if unknown
t
D
if
t
D
t
D
if
T
Y
t
t D
p
f SMYS
0.01 -
D
t
=
gw
d h
d h
d h
gw
u Temp y
h
C
where where
Design Format
DNV OS-F101
Snamprogetti 97
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X65, WT = 13.7mm - BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE
Local Buckling Assessment by Advanced FEM Analysis
Snamprogetti 98
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X65, WT = 13.7mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Snamprogetti 99
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X65, WT = 13.7mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MAXIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Snamprogetti 100
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X52, WT = 22.2mm - BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE
Snamprogetti 101
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X52, WT = 22.2mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Snamprogetti 102
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X52, WT = 22.2mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MAXIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Snamprogetti 103
October 19th, 2005
Fracture and Plastic Collapse Limit State of Defected Welds
Fitness-For-Purpose approaches (FFP)
- Fabrication Codes/Standards are based on good workmanship principles
- They are somewhat arbitrary, and do not consider effect of weld flaw on
service performance
- Repairing welds could introduce more severe defects, material properties
degradation
- Weld flaw is acceptable, provided that the critical conditions are not reached
in service life
- Unnecessary and costly weld repairs may be avoided
- FFP assessments rely on NDT input
Engineering Criticality Assessment approaches (ECA)
- Usually based on the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)
- Explicitly include material properties (toughness, yield and tensile strength),
flaws and structure geometry, loads and load effects
- Suitable for a limit state based Design
- BS7910 (1999), R6 rev.4 (2001)
Snamprogetti 104
October 19th, 2005
Girth Weld
Flaw
Calculation of acceptable and detectable flaw Calculation of acceptable and detectable flaw
dimensions based on fracture/plastic collapse dimensions based on fracture/plastic collapse
capacity and on the allowable applied capacity and on the allowable applied
stress/strain stress/strain
r
= (
I
/
mat
) +
L
r
=
n
/
Y
2c
a
2a
t
BS 7910
FAILURE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM (FAD)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
(Plastic Collapse) L
r
(
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
)

r
SAFE AREA
FAILURE
The design issue: ECA, AUT/NDT, allowable load effects
for defected girth welds
Snamprogetti 105
October 19th, 2005
ECA - Failure Assessment Diagram - Application
Typical Stress-Strain Relationships:
mean, upper bound and lower bound
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Minimum
Mean
Maximum
MISMATCHING of Material MISMATCHING of Material
Mechanical Characteristics Mechanical Characteristics
Applied longitudinal stress Applied longitudinal stress
depends on the actual depends on the actual
mechanical characteristics mechanical characteristics
of the weld material relatively of the weld material relatively
to the base material of to the base material of
the nominal pipe joints. the nominal pipe joints.
Snamprogetti 106
October 19th, 2005
FAD CONSTRAINT MODIFIED
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Plastic Collapse, L
r
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
,

r
SAFE AREA
FAILURE AREA
R6 (rev.4) Lev.1
MODIFIED
R6 (rev.4) Lev.1
Constraint Based ECA
FRACTURE
TOUGHNESS
[J, K, CTOD]
GEOMETRY / CONSTRAINT [T,Q,M]
SENB (a/W = 0.3)
CT (a/W = 0.5)
SENB (a/W = 0.5)
SENT PIPE
Defected welds in
tubular are usually
low constraint structures
FEM (ABAQUS)
Modified FAD
Approach, R6
Snamprogetti 107
October 19th, 2005
Load instability curve
680
685
690
695
700
705
710
715
720
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Tearing a [mm]
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

[
M
p
a
]
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
S
t
r
a
i
n
Stress
Strain
Maximum
X65 Maximum - Matching
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Lr
r
FAD 2B
FAD 2B Constraint modified-R6
Increasing crack height
Increasing applied stress/strain
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
Resistance Curve
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Tearing - a [mm]
C
T
O
D

[
m
m
]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
J

[
N
/
m
m
]
DESIGN CURVE
CTOD (mm)
J (N/mm)
Fracture and Plastic Collapse Limit State of Defected Girth Welds
Ductile Tearing ECA
Snamprogetti 108
October 19th, 2005
LSBD vs. Harsh Environment
(Deep waters, Arctic and Sub-arctic environment, high seismic area etc.)
LSBD and reliability methods have been developed in the last ten years
through a joint effort of pipeline operators, construction Companies and
design consulting Companies
LSBD allows to optimise pipeline design as it accounts for actual failure
modes including in a rational way the effects of uncertainties related to
offshore pipeline construction and operation
LSBD will be increasingly important while exploiting harsh environments
and also in the rational integrity management of the huge pipeline network,
both on-land and offshore, currently in service
Snamprogetti 109
October 19th, 2005
DESIGN PROCESS
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti 110
October 19th, 2005
INPUT DATA
Pipe outer diameter, D
o
= 914.4 mm
Pipe steel wall thickness, t = 26.04 mm
Outer diameter to thickness ratio, D
o
/t = 35.12
Steel Grade = API 5L X60
Minimum Specified Yield Stress, SMYS = 415 MPa
Minimum Specified Tensile Strength, SMTS = 520 MPa
SMYS derated factor, f
y, Temp
= 0 MPa
SMTS derated factor, f
u, Temp
= 0 MPa
Max yield to tensile strength factor,
h,d
=(Y/T)
max
= 0.90
Inner pressure, p
i
= 0 to 10 MPa
Exercise No. 1
Calculate the Local buckling deformation capacity
using DCC DNV OS-F101 Design Equation
i.e. limit value, functional, accidental and environmental value
Snamprogetti 111
October 19th, 2005
d A A d E E d F C F D
d C,
D

, , ,

+ + =
( )
( ) =
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
|
.
|
\
|
2
5 1 78 . 0
max
,
2
3
,
,
T
Y
t
t D
p
f SMYS
0.01 -
D
t
=
d h
d h
d h
gw
u Temp y
h
C
Displacement Controlled Condition (DCC) DNV Design Equation

Exercise No. 1
C
: limit strain
F,d
: applied functional strain
E,d
: applied environmental strain
A,d
: applied accidental strain
Snamprogetti 112
October 19th, 2005
SYMBOL DEFINITION

D
: design strain

F
: functional load factor (=1.1)

E
: environmental load factor (=1.3)

A
: accidental load factor (=1.0)

P
: pressure load factor (=1.05)

C
: functional load condition factor (=1.0)

gw
: reduction factor due to girth welds (= 1.0 assumed)

h,d
: maximum yield stress to ultimate tensile strength (=0.92)

u
: material strength factor (=1.00 assumed)

: pressure load factor (=2.6)

p
d
=
P
p
i
: differential design pressure with respect to water pressure
p
i
: inner pressure ranging from 0 to 10 MPa
Exercise No. 1
Snamprogetti 113
October 19th, 2005
RESULTS:
Limit
>
Accidental
>
Functional
>
Environmental
Exercise No. 1
-5.00%
-4.50%
-4.00%
-3.50%
-3.00%
-2.50%
-2.00%
-1.50%
-1.00%
-0.50%
0.00%
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Inner Pressure (MPa)
M
i
n
i
m
u
m

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
Limit
Functional
Environmental
Accidental
Snamprogetti 114
October 19th, 2005
INPUT DATA
Ice keel gouging depth, D = 2.1 and 2.5 m
Pipe outer diameter, D
o
= 914.4 mm
Pipe steel wall thickness, t = 26.04 mm
Outer diameter to thickness ratio, D
o
/t = 35.12
Steel Grade = API 5L X60
Minimum Specified Yield Stress, SMYS = 415 MPa
SMTS derated factor, f
u, Temp
= 0 MPa
Inner pressure = 0 MPa
Max soil lateral resistance, q = 250 and 450 kN/m
Pipeline burial depth, H (top of pipe) = 2.5 to 3.5 m
Exercise No. 2
Calculate maximum bending strain on a pipeline
induced by ice keel gouging
Snamprogetti 115
October 19th, 2005
Maximum and minimum axial strains Maximum and minimum axial strains
along the pipeline axis in zone 2 along the pipeline axis in zone 2
Pipeline global horizontal Pipeline global horizontal
displacements in zone 2 displacements in zone 2
FEM Analysis Results
Exercise No. 2
Snamprogetti 116
October 19th, 2005
Simplified analytical model Simplified analytical model FEM global analysis FEM global analysis
Simplified Analytical Model
Exercise No. 2
Snamprogetti 117
October 19th, 2005
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
Coulomb-friction soil behaviour
Elasto-plastic steel material
behaviour
Shear and steel axial force equal to
zero
Two plastic hinge form: the plastic
moment, M
p
, is equal to
Soil movements underneath ice keel
gouging depth assumed constant
across the ice keel width and given
by the following equation
( )
H
D H
e D H u

=
7 . 1
0 . 1 , D
( ) t t D SMYS M
o
p
=
2
Exercise No. 2
Snamprogetti 118
October 19th, 2005
Rotational equilibrium gives:
The rotation at each hinge, , is
equal to
The bending strain at each hinge is
distributed on a 2.5 D
o
pipe length
z
u
=
q
M
z M z q
p
p
= =
8
2
4
1
2
( )
( )
z
H D u D
D
D
Radius M
q
H D u
o
o
o
bend
bend bend
p
,
5
1
5 2 5 . 2 2
1

8
, 2 . 0 = =
= = =

Exercise No. 2
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
RESULTS: Applied bending strain vs. soil cover, ice keel gouge depth
and soil lateral resistance
Exercise No. 2
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Pipeline burial depth (m)

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

b
e
n
d
i
n
g

s
t
r
a
i
n

(
%
)
q = 250 kN/m; D = 2.1 m.
q = 450 kN/m; D = 2.1 m.
q = 250 kN/m; D = 2.5 m.
q = 450 kN/m; D = 2.5 m.

Artic Pipeline Transport

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Artic Pipeline Transport

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Snamprogetti

October 19th, 2005

= = = 0 . 1 Depth Burial Pipe , Depth Gouge Ice

environmental load factor

Displacement Controlled Condition (DCC) DNV Design Equation

: pressure load factor (=2.6)

Você também pode gostar