Pipeline Free Span Mitigation

Pipeline Free Span Analysis and Mitigation


Nowadays, offshore pipelines have a significant role in development of oil and gas industry in different parts of the world. This crucial industry is laid on seabed by various methods either embedded in a trench (buried method) or laid on uneven seabed (unburied method). Construction of unburied pipeline is the most common method for its rapid and economic performance. In this method, however, the pipelines are subjected to various lengths of free spanning throughout the route during its life time, which may threaten the pipelines safety. Free spanning in offshore pipelines mainly occurs as a consequence of uneven seabed and local scouring due to flow turbulence and instability; hence, with no doubt, free spanning occurrences for unburied pipelines are completely inevitable.

Fredsoe and Sumer (1997) assessed the role of free spans in unburied offshore pipelines. They acknowledged the previous studies and mentioned that resonance is the main problem for offshore pipelines laid on the free spanning. Pipelines resonance happens when the external load frequency as a result of vortex shedding becomes equal to the pipe Natural Frequency. This phenomenon may burst the pipe coating and may lead to develop more fatigue on the pipelines. Different design guidelines, e.g. DNV (1998) and ABS (2001), have accepted a less stringent approach and recommend the free spanning to be reduced to the allowable length to avoid fatigue damage. These guidelines proposed a simple formulation to calculate the first Natural Frequency based on the pipelines specifications and seabed conditions; however, all of the guidelines encourages using modal analysis at the final phase of design.
Choi (2000) studied the effect of axial forces on free spanning of offshore pipelines. The results indicated that the axial force has a significant influence on the first Natural Frequency of the pipe. In this research, the different seabed condition has been broken down into three main types and the general beam equation for the boundary conditions was analytically solved. He also compared his result with Lloyd’s approximate formula, which estimates the first Natural Frequency of the beam considering axial load effect. Xu et al. (1999) applied the modal analysis to incorporate the real seabed condition to assess pipelines fatigue and Natural Frequency (NF). Later, Bai (2001) approved Xu et al. (1999) approach and emphasis on applying the modal analysis to determine the allowable length of free span for offshore pipelines.
In practice, a considerable amount of works have been applied to determine the allowable free span length, however, there is still lack of knowledge in assessing the role of all effective parameters in determination of allowable free span length. The objective of this paper is two folds: (i) to assess the role of main effective parameters on Natural Frequency; and (ii) to present a simple formula for allowable free span length with accounting for the seabed condition. To do so, first the approaches of DNV (1998) and ABS guidelines are discussed and then the modal analysis is outlined to have a useful tool to assess the role of all involved parameters. Finally, a case study on the Qeshem pipelines is performed to evaluate the free span allowable length.

During pipeline routing evaluation, consideration has to be given to the shortest pipeline length, environment conservation, and smooth sea bottom to avoid excessive free spanning of the pipeline. If the free span cannot be avoided due to rough sea bottom topography, the excessive free span length must be corrected. Free spanning causes problems in both static and dynamic aspects. If the free span length is too long, the pipe will be over-stressed by the weight of the pipe plus its contents. The drag force due to near-bottom current also contributes to the static load.

To mitigate the static span problem, mid-span supports, such as mechanical legs or sand-cement bags/mattresses, can be used. Free spans are also subject to dynamic motions induced by current, which is referred to as a vortex induced vibration (VIV). The vibration starts when the vortex shedding frequency is close to the natural frequency of the pipe span. As the pipe natural frequency is increased, by reducing the span length, the VIV will be diminished and eliminated. Adding VIV suppression devices, such as strakes or hydrofoils, can also prevent the pipe from vibrating under certain conditions. The VIV is an issue even in the deepwater field since there exists severe near-bottom loop currents. To prevent static and dynamic spanning problems, a number of offshore pipeline spanning mitigation methods in Table 3 have been identified. Based on soil conditions, water depth, and span height from the seabed, the appropriate method should be selected. If the span off-bottom height is relatively low, say less than 1 m (3 ft), sand-cement bags or mattresses are recommended. If the span off-bottom height is greater than 1 m (3 ft), clamp-on supports with telescoping legs or auger screw legs are more practical.

References:
Bakhtiary, Abbas Yeganeh, Abbas Ghaheri, Reza Valipour. 2007. “Analysis of Offshore Pipeline Allowable Free Span Length”.
http://www.jylpipeline.com, January 2014.

Mechanical Connectors Subsea





Hydratight's Mechanical Connector (formerly known as MORGRIP™ mechanical pipe connector) replaces the need for the welding of topside and subsea piping and pipelines in oil and gas, and petrochemical applications.
Since the late 1980s Hydratight's Mechanical Connectors have provided proven leak-free service history for permanent usage, and can be used for all sizes and pressure ratings of carbon steel, stainless steel, duplex and super duplex  pipes, in critical and non-critical service.

Our innovative products benefit from:

  • Morgrip pipe connectorHotwork-free installation
  • 100% leak-free service history
  • Over 2500 connectors deployed to date
  • No need for full shutdowns
  • Metal graphite composite seal
  • External seal testing facility
  • Unique weld strength gripping mechanism
  • Removable and reusable
  • At least as strong as the pipe itself
  • Permanent or temporary solutions
  • Firesafe certified for topside applications
  • Enhanced performance and operation
  • High integrity solution
  • NACE compliant
  • Minimum connector design life of 30 years
  • Comprehensive third-party approvals, including DNV and ABS.
morgrip-accreditation-logos-2.gif
Hydratight's Mechanical Connectors are available in a variety of formats, including Flange Adaptor terminating a bare-pipe with a flange, and Coupling joining one bare-end pipe direct to another. All formats suit specific applications, whether for use on carbon steel, stainless steel, duplex, super duplex or other pipe materials.

Source : http://www.hydratight.com/en/products/mechanical-connectors

Pipe in Pipe

Pipe-in-Pipe New Design

Increasing demand for energy, matched with high commodity prices and advances in technology, are driving operators to extract whatever reserves remain in the challenging UK continental shelf. Therefore, the requirement to transfer these multi-phase products from often high-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) wells back onshore is an even more demanding prospect.
Up until now, the common belief in the industry was that pipe-in-pipe systems able to withstand environmental challenges such as corrosion, structural integrity, and thermal management, would be too costly and complex to apply to riser systems.

Tata Steel worked closely with supply partners to engineer, procure, and construct these assemblies to further develop this innovative technology as a cost-effective solution to flow assurance issues.

Need for insulation

HP/HT fields are technically more complex to develop because of the inherently higher energy in the well fluid and its multi-phase composition. Managing the extreme pressure and operating temperature must be based and evaluated on criteria such as corrosion, maintaining structural integrity, and thermal management.

One particular challenge is the management of pipeline shutdown. Less expensive solutions for managing the insulation of bends such as wet coatings, compromise overall shutdown times due to reduced thermal efficiency. Solutions, such as "self-draining" spools, present a significant design challenge that can be mitigated by the inclusion of pipe-in-pipe bends, enabling the same thermal integrity to be maintained in the whole line.
Tata Steel has previously implemented a solution for pipe-in-pipe bends for a North Sea development. Since then, new insulation techniques have been developed that give far superior insulation properties.

Risers, spools, and bends

The main challenge with the construction of pipe-in-pipe bends is how to pass the inner flowline bend into the outer casing pipe. It is important that pipe bends have a straight portion on the end to enable efficient welding to the next pipe section and this can present the insertion of one bend into the other.
The second construction challenge is efficient insulation. Wrapping or sheathing is simply not practical here as the insulation would occupy the annulus of the assembly and prevent the integration.

New insulation system


Drawing of the geometry of one pipe into another.

The system developed by Tata Steel overcomes these problems by deploying granular Nanogel insulation into the annulus of the pipe-in-pipe system. Nanogel is made by first forming a silica gel, then expelling the water from the silica matrix. The resulting material is granular with trapped nanopores of air, inhibiting heat transfer by conduction, convection, and radiation (with the inclusion of an opacifier).

The deployment of a novel polymeric bulkhead, cast directly into the annulus, provides a solid barrier to retain the insulation, which allows for the relative movement of the inner and outer bends. The polymer is a "syntactic" material, silicone rubber with glass microspheres dispersed through the matrix with high strength, flexibility, and thermal efficiency. The tangent ends of the inner and outer bends are held rigidly to ensure that the assembly tolerances achieved at manufacture are retained when the unit is transferred to the welding contractor for incorporation into the pipeline spool or riser.

In order for the insulation to be effectively deployed and provide the consistent thermal performance, the annular gap throughout the assembly must be uniform. It is important the manufacturing tolerances of the pipe and bends are closely controlled.

Steel pipe and bend manufacture

Together with Tata Steel, Eisenbau Krämer (EBK) and the pipe bending plant of Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech (SMGB) have developed a series of controls, including a process and measurement system, to ensure all bend dimensions are closely controlled and mating bends can be produced, matched, and paired to ensure the most accurate assembly is produced.
In respect to the process-related thinning in the extrados of the hot induction bends, the wall thickness for the inner and outer mother pipes was increased accordingly. To match precisely, the mother pipes have been manufactured with the same ID as the riser pipes.

16-in. clad bends being transferred to the quenching tank after austenitization at SMGB pipe bending mill.
EBK supplied Tata Steel with the mother pipe, which has material properties that allow formation through hot induction bending. The main material challenges are to ensure the mechanical properties are suitable after bending. Therefore, SMGB is taking responsibility for the chemical design of the pre-material. This also involves the consideration of a series of heat treatment and forming processes. EBK uses a multi-pass welding process and steel plate from premium mills in Europe. The manufacturing process at EBK generates pipe of the closest dimensional control through a series of cold forming and sizing operations such as external calibration.

At the SMGB pipe bending plant, the special mother pipes are bent by hot induction bending. Heat is applied through electrical induction to the mother pipe materials and the pipe is slowly formed to give the correct geometry. In most pipeline applications the critical dimensions are the positions and attitudes of the ends of the bends (center-to-end dimension) to maintain the overall geometry of the pipeline. However, with pipe-in-pipe bends it is important that the bend radius is also accurately controlled to ensure the two bends can be integrated. The precise dimensions after bending also need to be maintained following heat treatment. For the inner clad bends, a full-body quench and temper heat treatment is applied at the SMGB bending mill in order to guarantee homogenized material properties for the bends, to fulfill mechanical and corrosion requirements.

HP/HT material properties

Additional material complexities have to be overcome. Generally, in HP/HT lines there are challenges because of corrosion, low temperature toughness, and strength. These parameters require careful material selection to maintain the balance of properties from the outset through to bend production. Thermal stresses need to be managed as the loads are shared between inner and outer pipe. In addition, the insulation can lead to extremes of temperature being retained in the pipe materials during operation and shutdown that can form challenging conditions for conventional steel products.

Conclusion

HP/HT well environments present some of the most challenging and technologically demanding conditions for field developments, not least because the properties in each reserve offer significant challenges in terms of material selection and design.
Tata Steel and its supply partners have expanded capabilities further with the design and creation of cost-effective insulated pipe-in-pipe bends for risers and spools - an accomplishment previously considered too difficult.
Pipe-in-pipe bends, while challenging technologically, can lead to simplification of overall pipeline design and can give better pipeline performance in times of operation and shutdown.



Underwater Welder

HOW TO BECOME AN UNDERWATER DIVER?
While a career as a commercial diver and underwater welder can be rewarding, it is not for everyone. The industry demands total commitment, long hours, extensive travel, a great attitude and superior work ethic.  If you're interested in becoming a commercial diver and underwater welder then it's important that you be ready for a physically and mentally challenging career.

What you will need

If you believe becoming an underwater welder is right for you, these are the minimum requirements you will need to possess:
  • High school Diploma or GED
  • Ability to swim
  • Mechanical aptitude
  • Commercial Diving Certification
  • AWS Certified Welding Training

Finding a School

View a class photo at Commercial Diving Academy
A commercial diver certification requires significantly more training than a standard recreational SCUBA certification.  As a certified commercial diver, you are trained to work in industrial environments that frequently involve heavy construction and dangerous working conditions including electrocution and pressure related injuries. 
Commercial divers receive the specialized training that allows them to work in a wide variety of environments from inland dams and bridges to offshore pipes and oil rigs.
In order to become a certified underwater welder, you will need formal training from an accredited diving school and pass their program in accordance with the American Welding Society D3.6 standard. **Click the image to the right to see what type of training exercises you will participate in as a commercial diver student!
Choosing the right school is an important first step to getting certified.  You can learn more about all that CDA Technical Institute has to offer its students here.

A commercial diver preparing to weld underwaterCosts and Financial Aid

There are many costs associated with obtaining the required certifications to become a commercial diver. Financial aid - in the form of grants and loans - can assist you with the required costs of becoming an underwater welder. Here are some of the typical costs associated with the certification:
  • Tuition
  • Registration Fees
  • Room & Board
  • Books / Equipment
  • Dive Physical
To view CDA's tuition and fees for the Air/Mixed Gas Commercial Diver Program (Underwater Welder) click here. And for more information on financial aid available at CDA Technical Institute, click here.

Get a dive physical

Prior to gaining formal acceptance into a commercial diving program, you will be required to take a "dive physical". This needs to be completed by an approved hyperbaric physician. If you're planning on attending CDA, this can be done on the first day of school ($399)  by a local Divers Certification Board of Canada (DCBC) approved physician.

After graduation

If you've just graduated, you may want to try contacting a company that hires underwater welders as apprentices. This type of position is referred to as a "diver-tender".  As a graduate from Commercial Diving Academy you are entitled to career assistance from our placement department. Personnel from both offshore and inland dive companies are in contact with CDA regularly to recruit our graduates. Consequently, CDA's job-placement rates are among the highest in the country.

Source : https://www.commercialdivingacademy.com/underwater-welder.cms

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.
Source : http://www.offshore-technology.com/uploads/newsarticle/688566/images/140996/large/riser%20hydro.jpg

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.
Bibliography
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 : http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/pipeline-hydro-test-pressure-determination?page=5

Pipeline Integrity Management

Pipeline Integrity Management is a process for evaluating and reducing pipeline risks. The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 required the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) to develop and issue regulations that address risk analysis and integrity management programs (IMP) for pipeline operators. In 2003, PHMSA finalized the IMP regulations which pipeline operators were required to implement the following year. As a result of these regulations, natural gas transmission companies must conduct baseline evaluations of pipe segments within high consequence areas (HCAs) by the end of 2012. HCAs are defined as areas where a gas pipeline failure would have a significant impact on public safety or the environment.
Pipeline Integrity Mangement
Source : http://gs-press.com.au/images/news_articles/cache/PIM_continuously_improving_loop-600x0.jpg

Integrity Management Program:
CenterPoint Energy has implemented a robust IMP to achieve or exceed the requirements mandated by PHMSA. This program builds on an existing foundation of pipeline safety regulations covering design, construction, testing, operation and maintenance – a foundation that was laid many years ago. CenterPoint Energy’s IMP is required for approximately 180 miles of HCA pipeline segments, but we plan to do more. By the end of 2012, the company expects to have evaluated over 2,500 miles of pipelines – over 10 times the amount required by PHMSA.
Our Integrity Management Program consists of seven main steps:
  1. HCA Identification: CenterPoint Energy evaluates population densities each year to determine the HCAs along the pipeline system.
  2. Data Integration: The company gathers and integrates information from historical construction documents, pipeline operating history, and pipeline evaluations.
  3. Risk Analysis: The company then analyzes individual pipeline segments for exposure to threats as well as the public safety and environmental consequences of a pipeline failure.
  4. Evaluation: Using state of the art tools, CenterPoint Energy evaluates the pipeline segments for corrosion, damage or other issues detrimental to the safe operation of the pipeline segment.
  5. Repair: The company then investigates and repairs any issues found during the evaluation step to ensure the pipeline continues to operate safely.
  6. Minimize Risks: The company utilizes data integration, risk analysis, evaluations and repairs to develop actions that can be taken to minimize or eliminate future damage and/or consequences.
  7. Improve: Finally, the company evaluates the IMP for areas of success and looks for other areas on our pipeline system where improvements can be made. We incorporate these improvements into our ongoing safety initiatives and the cycle starts again.
Public Safety:
The ultimate goal of CenterPoint Energy’s IMP is to protect people living, working and playing near our pipelines, as well as protecting the environment surrounding our pipelines. As a direct result of our IMP efforts, CenterPoint Energy has excavated and examined over 2,100 pipeline segments.
  • To combat internal corrosion, we ran over 220 cleaning pigs in 2011 to clean our pipelines, used corrosion inhibitors, and monitored internal corrosion using metal probes.
  • To reduce external corrosion, we use cathodic protection equipment and routinely take test point readings to evaluate the pipeline’s level of protection. We also perform pipeline coating surveys – so far we have covered 3,100 miles of our system and plan to complete the entire system by 2016.
  • To help prevent third party damage we employ pipeline markers, aerial patrols, foot patrols, and right-of-way clearing. In addition, CenterPoint Energy is fully committed to, and participates in, the 8-1-1 Call Before You Dig Program.
Public Awareness:
CenterPoint Energy has a comprehensive Public Awareness program. We dedicate a great deal of time and resources to keeping in contact with both the public and the emergency responders located near our pipelines. Each year we mail hundreds of thousands of information packets to people living near our pipelines. We also have safety meetings with excavation contractors, law enforcement and fire prevention officials. In addition, we send age appropriate educational materials to the schools near our pipelines. It is our goal to partner with the officials dedicated to protecting the public.
Leading Edge:
CenterPoint Energy is a proud participant and supporter of industry efforts to continually improve pipeline safety and reliability. We are a member of Intrastate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and actively participate in the INGAA Integrity Management Continuous Improvement (IMCI) initiative. IMCI has set a goal of zero incidents as one of its guiding principles. Another IMCI goal is to apply integrity management principles on a much larger scale than required by current regulations. CenterPoint Energy supports these INGAA initiatives and participates on IMCI planning teams.
In addition, the company participates in research projects hosted by Pipeline Research Council International, Inc (PRCI). PRCI is dedicated to researching issues and producing solutions that assure safe and reliable pipelines. CenterPoint is a PRCI member company and participates on many PRCI research teams.
CenterPoint Energy believes we are one of the companies leading the pipeline industry to a safer, more reliable future.
Commitment:
CenterPoint Energy is committed to protecting the public and environment. Our dedication to safety is a reflection of our company values: Integrity, Accountability, Initiative and Respect. If you need further information or have additional questions, please contact us at Midstream Pipeline Safety.
Source :
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/services/pipelines/naturalgassafety/pipelineintegritymanagement/

Pipeline Gooseneck

gooseneck (or goose neck) is a 180° pipe fitting at the top of a vertical pipe that prevents entry of water. Common implementations of goosenecks are ventilator piping or ducting for bathroom and kitchen exhaust fans, ship holds, landfillmethane vent pipes, or any other piping implementation exposed to the weather where water ingress would be undesired. It is so named because the word comes from the similarity of the pipe fitting to the bend in a goose's neck.[1]
Gooseneck may also refer to a style of kitchen or bathroom faucet with a long vertical pipe terminating in a 180° bend.
To avoid hydrocarbon accumulation, a thermosiphon should be installed at the low point of the gooseneck

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gooseneck_(piping)