Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Bagaimana Apabila Pipeline Melalui Permukaan yang Tidak Rata?

Ilustrasi analisis kerataan lereng
(diambil dari www.parkafm.com)

Pada saat pemilihan jalur untuk instalasi pipeline, tak jarang suatu pipeline terpaksa harus melewati suatu jalur / permukaan yang tidak rata. Pada kondisi tersebut, dibutuhkan analisis untuk menentukan apakah kondisi tersebut masih dapat ditoleransi dalam aplikasinya, yang dinamakan analisis bottom roughness.
Analisis bottom roughness adalah analisis yang diperlukan untuk mensimulasikan kondisi pipeline pada seabed apabila terdapat free span atau titik sepanjang pipa yang beresiko mengalami stress/tegangan yang tinggi dapat diketahui sejak awal sehingga dapat direncanakan perbaikan kondisi seabed sebelum pipa dipasang (pre-lay correction) atau pun setelah pipa dipasang (post lay correction). Analisis bottom roughness sangat penting karena tanpa analisis ini, jumlah support untuk pipeline seperti sand bag, grout bag, dan lain-lain, tidak dapat ditentukan.

Input yang dimasukkan dalam analisis ini adalah sebagai berikut.
  • Pipeline configuration.
  • Seabed roughness (profile).
  • Pipeline handling alignment.

Output yang dihasilkan dalam analisis ini adalah sebagai berikut.
  • Pipeline stress and stress response. Merupakan respon tegangan dan regangan yang diterima pada pipeline.
  • Span length and height. Merupakan panjang span yang terjadi, dan ketinggiannya diukur dari seabed dalam bentuk angka dan pipeline profiling.
  • Pre-lay and post-lay intervention assessment. Merupakan bahan penunjang saat akan melakukan pre-lay ataupun post-lay, karena berisi hasil analisis letak span yang dapat menjadi panduan bagi lokasi perbaikan.

Load cases yang diujikan dalam analisis ini adalah sebagai berikut.
  • As-laid.
  • Flooded.
  • Hydrotest.
  • Operations.

Berikut contoh output berupa pipeline profiling dengan berbagai load cases.
output bottom roughness.png
Contoh Pipeline Profiles Hasil Analisis dalam Beberapa Load Case (sumber:http://www.dyurindatama.files.wordpress.com)

Bagaimana Memilih Grade dan Material untuk Pipeline?

Pengecekan Material Pipa
(diambil dari www.youtube.com)
Before the installation of a pipeline system, it should be concerned if the pipeline material is compatible with the given environment and operating condition. Is the material alloy available in the size and thickness required? Is it the most economical choice? Will it withstand the working temperature? Pipeline material alloy used for one particular place may not be the same in other place, due to difference of the environment. For instance, material used for in-land pipeline will differ to offshore pipeline. At offshore, the circumstances is more corrosive than in-land.
Material selection shall be optimized, considering investment and operational costs, that are minimized while providing acceptable safety and durability. There are few criteria that should be considered in selecting the right material, such as:
  • The availability of the material required
  • Installation procedure
  • Operating condition (seawater: corrosive)
  • External and internal environment
  • Design life
  • Inspection and maintenance
  • The ability of the material to be treated
There are also reference that can be used in choosing offshore pipeline material, like:
  • API 5L – Specification for Line Pipe
  • API RP 17B – Recommended practice for flexible pipe
  • ASME B31.3 – Chemical plant and petroleum refinery piping
  • ASTM D 2992 – Practice for obtaining hydrostatic or pressure design basis for fiberglass pipe and fittings
  • DnV RP B201 – Metallic materials in drilling, production, and process system

SOURCE: HTTPS://NONERIESKA.WORDPRESS.COM/2013/01/30/PIPELINE-MATERIAL-AND-GRADE-SELECTION/

Apa yang terjadi ketika suatu free span ter mitigasi?

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. Graphical illustrations of each method are shown in below.
SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.JYLPIPELINE.COM/UKC2002.PDF,HTTPS://ARIFKL.WORDPRESS.COM/2013/02/03/FREE-SPAN-MITIGATION/

Apa yang Dimaksud Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV)?



Ilustrasi VIV
Vortex-induced vibration is a major cause of fatigue failure in submarine oil and gas pipelines and steel catenary risers. Even moderate currents can induce vortex shedding. Pipelines from offshore petroleum fields must frequently pass over areas with uneven seafloor. One of the serious problems for the structural safety of pipelines is uneven areas in the seafloor as they enhance the formation of free spans. Route selection, therefore, plays an important part in design, Matteelli (1982). However, due to many obstacles it is difficult to find a totally obstruction free route. In such cases the pipeline may have free spans when crossing depressions. Hence, if dynamic loads can occur, the free span may oscillate and time varying stresses may give unacceptable fatigue damage. A major source for dynamic stresses in free span pipelines is vortex induced vibrations (VIV) caused by steady current. This effect is in fact dominating on deep water pipelines since wave induced velocities and accelerations will decay with increasing water depth. The challenge for the industry is then to verify that such spans can sustain the influence from the environment throughout the lifetime of the pipeline.
The aim of the present project is to improve the understanding of vortex induced vibrations (VIV) of free span pipelines, and thereby improve methods, existing computer programs and guidelines needed for design verification. This will result in more cost effective and reliable offshore pipelines when laid on a very rugged seafloor.The Ormen Lange field in the Norwegian Sea is one of the examples where the pipeline will have a large number of long spans even for the best possible route (see Figure 1). It was decided to evaluate two different strategies for field development; one based on offshore loading and the other on a pipeline to an onshore gas terminal. A key problem for the last alternative is that the seafloor between these fields and the coast is extremely rugged meaning that a pipeline must have more and longer free spans than what is seen for conventional pipelines. Today’s knowledge and guidelines are inadequate for obtaining a cost effective and reliable pipeline under these conditions, Det Norske Veritas (1998). Significant uncertainties are related to the assessment of fatigue from vortex induced vibrations caused by ocean currents. An extensive research program has therefore been initiated. The aim has been to improve the understanding of VIV for free span pipelines and thereby identify potential unnecessary conservatism in existing guidelines. Some changes have been proposed by Det Norske Veritas (2002), but improved analysis models have not been developed so far.
Two alternative strategies for calculation of VIV are seen today. Practical engineering is still based on empirical models, while use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is considered immature mainly because of the needed computing resources. Most empirical models are based on frequency domain dynamic solutions and linear structural models Larsen (2000), but the free span pipeline case has indeed important nonlinearities that should be taken into consideration. Both tension variation and pipe-seafloor interaction will contribute to non-linear behavior, which means that most empirical models will have significant limitations when dealing with the free span case. CFD models may certainly be linked to a non-linear structural model, but the needed computing time will become overwhelming. Then, one of the main focuses of the present research is investigation about time domain model for analysis of vortex induced vibrations for free span pipelines and the other is about multi free span pipelines where neighbor spans may interact dynamically. The interaction will depend on the length and stiffness of the pipe resting on the sea floor between the spans, and sea floor parameters such as stiffness, damping and friction. Each of them has important issues to investigate for improvement of our VIV knowledge.

Apa yang Dimaksud Upheaval Buckling pada Pipeline?

When production starts through a pipeline, internal temperature and pressure will rise. The temperature increase will lead to thermal expansion of the steel. A pipeline will be restrained variously along the routing due to soil friction, and the temperature rise will result in axial compressive forces in the pipe. As a response to the longitudinal compressive force interacting with local curvature of the pipe, global buckling may occur.
A pipeline can buckle downwards in a free span, sideways on the seabed or upwards for buried pipelines. Vertical buckling of a pipeline is called upheaval buckling, and the direction of the buckle is upwards because this is the way of least resistance. If a vertical buckle leads the pipe into exposure on the seabed, this is a severe problem. An expensive and time consuming operation is needed to re cover the pipe at this location. If the buckle damages the pipeline, this part must be replaced before re covering takes place.
Image
For upheaval buckling to occur, the pipeline must first have an initial imperfection. Imperfections are typically due to the pipeline being laid over a boulder or due to irregularities in the seabed profile.
Figure below illustrates a sequence of events which initiates buckling in a buried pipeline:
Image
The pipeline is laid across an uneven seabed (a) and later trenched and buried (b). The trenching and burial operations modify the profile of the foundation on which the pipe is resting, so that it is not precisely the same as the original profile. Trenching may smooth the profile overbends, but may also introduce additional imperfections, if, for instance, a lump of bottom soil falls under the pipe.
The occurrence of an upheaval buckle is highly depending on the smoothness of the seabed profile. According to the DNV-RP-F110 (Global Buckling of Submarine Pipelines), it gives criteria to avoid upheaval buckling from occurring by designing sufficient cover providing enough resistance for pipelines to remain in place. Therefore, upheaval buckling is considered as an ultimate limit state (ULS) in the RP.
SOURCE: HTTPS://NONERIESKA.WORDPRESS.COM/2013/02/01/UPHEAVAL-BUCKLING-OF-OFFSHORE-PIPELINES/

Apa yang dimaksud Elbow dan Bend pada Pipa?

Piping Elbows and Bends are very important pipe fitting which are used very frequently for changing direction in piping system. Piping Elbow and Piping bend are not the same, even though sometimes these two terms are interchangeably used.A BEND is simply a generic term in piping for an “offset” – a change in direction of the piping. It signifies that there is a “bend” i.e,  a change in direction of the piping (usually for some specific reason) – but it lacks specific, engineering definition as to direction and degree. Bends are usually made by using a bending machine (hot bending and cold bending) on site and suited for a specific need. Use of bends are economic as it reduces number of expensive fittings.An ELBOW, on the other hand, is a specific, standard, engineered bend pre-fabricated as a spool piece  (based on ASME B 16.9) and designed to either be screwed, flanged, or welded to the piping it is associated with. An elbow can be 45 degree or 90 degree. There can also be custom-designed elbows, although most are catagorized as either “short radius” or long radius”.
In short “All bends are elbows but all elbows are not bend”
Whenever the term elbow is used, it must also carry the qualifiers of type (45 or 90 degree) and radius (short or long) – besides the nominal size.
Elbows can change direction to any angle as per requirement. An elbow angle can be defined as the angle by which the flow direction deviates from its original flowing direction (See Fig.1 below).Even though An elbow angle can be anything greater than 0 but less or equal to 90°But still a change in direction greater than 90° at a single point is not desirable. Normally, a 45° and a 90° elbow combinedly used while making piping layouts for such situations.
piping elbow
Elbow angle can be easily calculated using simple geometrical technique of mathematics. Lets give an example for you. Refer to Fig.2. Pipe direction is changing at point A with the help of an elbow and again the direction is changing at the point G using another elbow.
In order to find out the elbow angle at A, it is necessary to consider a plane which contains the arms of the elbow. If there had been no change in direction at point A, the pipe would have moved along line AD but pipe is moving along line AG. Plane AFGD contains lines AD and AG and elbow angle (phi) is marked which denotes the angle by which the flow is deviating from its original direction.

Bagaimana Cara Mengelas dalam Air? (Underwater weld)

Reader Questions and Answers

    Don't see your question? Ask it here:

    Bagaimana Hydrotest Dilakukan untuk Pipeline?

    1. Hydrostatic testing has long been used to determine and verify pipeline integrity. Several types of information can be obtained through this verification process.
      However, it is essential to identify the limits of the test process and obtainable results. There are several types of flaws that can be detected by hydrostatic testing, such as:
      • Existing flaws in the material,
      • Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) and actual mechanical properties of the pipe,
      • Active corrosion cells, and
      • Localized hard spots that may cause failure in the presence of hydrogen.
      There are some other flaws that cannot be detected by hydrostatic testing. For example, the sub-critical material flaws cannot be detected by hydro testing, but the test has profound impact on the post test behavior of these flaws.
      Given that the test will play a significant role in the nondestructive evaluation of pipeline, it is important to determine the correct test pressure and then utilize that test pressure judiciously, to get the desired results.
      When a pipeline is designed to operate at a certain maximum operating pressure (MOP), it must be tested to ensure that it is structurally sound and can withstand the internal pressure before being put into service. Generally, gas pipelines are hydrotested by filling the test section of pipe with water and pumping the pressure up to a value that is higher than maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) and holding the pressure for a period of four to eight hours.
      ASME B 31.8 specifies the test pressure factors for pipelines operating at hoop stress of ? 30% of SMYS. This code also limits the maximum hoop stress permitted during tests for various class locations if the test medium is air or gas. There are different factors associated with different pipeline class and division locations. For example, the hydrotest pressure for a class 3 or 4 location is 1.4 times the MOP. The magnitude of test pressure for class 1 division 1 gas pipeline transportation is usually limited to 125% of the design pressure, if the design pressure is known. The allowed stress in the pipe material is limited to 72% of SMYS. In some cases it is extended to 80% of SMYS. The position of Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) is similar. Thus, a pipeline designed to operate continuously at 1,000 psig will be hydrostatically tested to a minimum pressure of 1,250 psig.
      Based on the above information, let us consider API 5L X70 pipeline of 32-inch NPS, that has a 0.500-inch wall thickness. Using a temperature de-rating factor of 1.00, we calculate the MOP of this pipeline from following:
      P= {2x t x SMYS x1x factor (class1) x 1} / D (ASME B 31.8 Section, 841.11)
      Substituting the values:
      P= 2x 0.5 x 70,000 x1 x0.72 x1/32 = 1,575 psig
      For the same pipeline, if designed to a factor of 0.8, the MOP will be computed to be 1750 psig.
      • If the fittings were the limiting factors of the test pressure, then the following situation would arise.
      • If the fittings used in the system are of ANSI 600 then the maximum test pressure will be (1.25 x 1,440) 1,800 psig. This test pressure will support the requirements of both factor 0.72 and 0.8.
      • If, however, ANSI 900 fittings were chosen for the same pipeline system, the test pressure (1.25 x 2,220) 2,775 psig would test the pipeline but would not test the fittings to their full potential.
      Let us first discuss the design factor of 0.72 (class1). In this case the test would result in the hoop reaching to 72% of the SMYS of the pipe material. Testing at 125% of MOP will result in the stress in the pipe reaching a value of 1.25 x 0.72 = 0.90 or 90% of SMYS. Thus, by hydrotesting the pipe at 1.25 times the operating pressure, we are stressing the pipe material to 90% of its yield strength that is 50,400 psi (factor 0.72).
      However, if we use a design factor of 0.8 – as is now often used – testing at 125% of MOP will result in the stress in the pipe to 1.25 x 0.8 =1. The stress would reach 100% of the yield strength (SMYS). So, at the test pressure of 1800 psig the stress will be 56,000 psi (for factor 0.8). This will be acceptable in case of class 600 fittings. But, if class 900 fittings were taken into account, the maximum test pressure would be (1.25 x 2,220) 2,775 psig and the resulting stress would be 88,800 psi which will be very near the maximum yield stress (90,000 psi) of API 5L X 70 PSL-2 material.

      Test Pressure And Materials SMYS

      Though codes and regulatory directives are specific about setting test pressure to below 72% or in some cases up to 80% of the SMYS of the material, there is a strong argument on testing a constructed pipeline to “above 100% of SMYS,” and as high as 120% of SMYS is also mentioned. Such views are often driven by the desire to reduce the number of hydrotest sections, which translates in reduction in cost of construction. In this context, it is often noted that there is some confusion even among experienced engineers on the use of term SMYS and MOP/MAOP in reference to the hydrotest pressure.
      It may be pointed out that the stress in material (test pressure) is limited by the SMYS. This is the law of physics, and is not to be broken for monetary gains at the peril of pipeline failure either immediate or in the future.
      In this regard, section 32 of directive No. 66 of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board in 2005 is of importance. The guidance is specific about the situation. It directs that if the test pressure causes hoop stress in the material exceeding 100% of the material SMYS, then the calculation and the entire hydro test procedure needs to be submitted to the board for review and approval.

      Stress Relieving And Strength

      Often there is argument presented that higher test pressures exceeding 100% of the SMYS will increase the “strength” of the material and will “stress relieve” the material. Both arguments have no technical basis to the point they are made. We will briefly discuss both these arguments here:
      1. Higher test pressure will “increase the strength.” As the material is stressed beyond its yield point, the material is in plastic deformation stage, which is a ductile stage, and hence it is in the constant process of losing its ability to withstand any further stress. So, it is not increasing in strength but progressively losing its strength.
      2. The second argument of “stress reliving” is linked with the “increase the strength” argument. The stress relief of material is carried out to reduce the locked-in stresses. The process reorients the grains disturbed often by cold working or welding. The stress relief process effectively reduces the yield strength. Thus, it does not “strengthen” the material. Note: It may be pointed out that a limited relaxation of stresses does occur by hydro testing, but the test pressure should be less than the material’s yield point.
      Another point to note here is that there is a stage in the stressing of the material where strain hardening occurs and the material certainly gains some (relative) hardness, and thereby, strength. This happens as necking begins but, at that point, unit area stress is so low that the strength of the material is lost and it remains of no practical use, especially in context with the pipe material we are discussing.
      Returning to the subject of pressure testing and its objectives. One of the key objectives of the testing is to find the possible flaws in the constructed pipeline. The test develops a certain amount of stress for a given time to allow these possible flaws to open out as leakages. In the following section we shall discuss the relation of these flaws to the test pressure and duration.
      Critical Flaw Size
      The maximum test pressure should be so designed that it provides a sufficient gap between itself and the operating pressure. In other worlds, the maximum test pressure should be > MOP.
      This also presupposes that after the test the surviving flaws in the pipeline shall not grow when the line is placed in service at the maintained operating pressure. For setting the maximum test pressure, it is important to know the effect of pressure on defect growth during the testing on the one hand and on the other flaws whose growth will be affected by pressure over the time.
      The defects that would not fail during a one-time, high test pressure are often referred as sub-critical defects. However these sub-critical defects would fail at lower pressure if held for longer time. But the size of discontinuity that would be in the sub-critical group would fail-independent of time-at about 105% of the “hold” pressure. This implies that maximum test pressure would have to be set at 5-10% above the maximum operating pressure (MOP) in order to find such defects during the test and also to avoid growth of sub-critical discontinuities after the hydro test pressure is released and during the operation life of pipeline. This is should be the main objective of the hydro test.
      If test pressure reaching 100% (design factor of 0.80) of the SMYS is considered, then one must also consider some important pre conditions attached to the procurement of the steel and pipe. Especially important to consider is the level of flaw size that was accepted in the plate/coil used to manufacture the pipe. The test pressure of such magnitude would require that the acceptable defect size be re-assessed. This is because all else being equal, a higher design factor, resulting in a thinner wall, will lead to a reduction in the critical dimensions of both surface and through-wall defects.
      Where such conditions are likely it may be prudent to reconsider the level of accepted flaws in the material. The current recommendations in API 5L 44th edition for acceptance level B2 as per ISO 12094 (for SAW pipes) may not be acceptable because it has limited coverage of body and edges and the acceptance criteria is far too liberal, in terms of acceptable size and area of flaws. More stringent criteria must be specified more in line with EN 10160 where level S2 for body and level E2 for edges may be more appropriate to meet the demands of the higher test pressures.
      Sub-critical surface flaw sizes at design factors of 0.80 and 0.72 are susceptible to growth at low stress and are time dependent. These flaws are also dependent on the acceptable limits of impact absorbing energy of the material and weld (not part of the discussion in this article).
      This increase in depth-to-thickness (d/t) ratio in effect reduces the ligament of the adjoining defects that reduce the required stress to propagate the discontinuity. Critical through-wall flaw lengths are also factors to be assessed. While there is a modest reduction in critical flaw length, it still indicates very acceptable flaw tolerance for any practical depth and the reduction will have negligible influence in the context of integrity management. Note that flaws deeper than about 70% of wall thickness will fail as stable leaks in both cases. This statement implies that mere radiography of the pipe welds (both field and mill welds) may not suffice. Automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT) of the welds will be better suited to properly determine the size of the planer defects in the welds. Similarly the use of AUT for assessing the flaws in the pipe body will be more stringent than usual.
      Pressure Reversal
      The phenomenon of pressure reversal occurs when a defect survives a higher hydrostatic test pressure but fails at a lower pressure in a subsequent repressurization. One of the several factors that work to bring on this phenomenon is the creep-like growth of sub-critical discontinuities over time and at lower pressure. The reduction in the wall thickness, caused by corrosion, external damages, is also responsible for a reduction in puncture resistance in the pipe. The reduction in the wall thickness, in effect reduces the discontinuity depth to the material thickness.
      This increase in d/t ratio reduces the ligament between the adjoining defects. This effectively reduces the stress required to propagate the discontinuity. The other factor affecting the pressure reversal is the damage to the Crack Tip Opening (CTO). The CTO is subject to some compressive force leading the crack tip to force-close during the initial test. On subsequent pressurization to significantly lower pressure this “force-close” tip starts to open-up and facilitates the growth of the crack. Hence, if such a pressure cycle is part of the design, then the point of pressure reversal should be considered.
      Puncture Resistance
      • It may also be noted that there is a modest reduction in puncture resistance with both increasing SMYS and increasing design factor. Note that the maximum design factor is, in some instances, constrained by practical limits on D/t.
      • In any event, it should be noted that only a small proportion of large excavators are capable of generating a puncture force exceeding 300 kN and that the reductions in puncture resistance noted would have to be assessed for the integrated approaches to the management of mechanical damage threats.

      SOURCE: HTTP://PGJONLINE.COM/2009/12/17/PIPELINE-HYDRO-TEST-PRESSURE-DETERMINATION/

    Bagaimana Proses De-comissioning pada Pipeline?

    Sunoco to Pipeline WV NGL thru Lancaster Co. PA
    From an Article by Dean Evans, Lancaster County, PA, November 21, 2013
    A decommissioned underground pipeline that once carried gasoline across the state and through Lancaster County could see new life from the Marcellus shale gas boom.
    “Mariner East 1 is a project to transport natural gas liquids (NGLs), also called liquefied petroleum gases (LPGs) from the Marcellus and Utica shales in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex on the Pennsylvania/Delaware border,” says Sunoco representative Jeff Shields.
    The Mariner East 1 project would stretch from a Sunoco facility just outside Houston, Pa., in Chartiers Township, Washington County, to its transportation hub in Marcus Hook, Delaware County, or a distance of about 300 miles.
    NGLs such as propane, ethane and butane are classified as “wet gas” because they are products of the process known a hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” The untainted, natural-gas methane is classified as a “dry gas.”
    Sunoco plans to begin transporting propane through the new Mariner East 1 pipeline by the second second half of 2014, and both ethane and propane by mid-2015.
    Shields explained that “the work being done on existing Mariner East 1 pipeline in places like West Cocalico Township involves integrity testing and valve replacement — we are replacing any existing valves and replacing pipe in places our testing has determined an upgrade is needed.”  Sunoco is “still evaluating sites for the pump station.”
    “The project is mostly existing pipeline, except for 50 miles of new pipeline being installed between the beginning of the pipe outside of Houston, Pa., to our terminal outside of Delmont, Pa.,” Shields says.
    The pipeline is ideal for the transportation of the liquid gas because of its termination in Marcus Hook, which has deepwater berths on the Delaware River for transporting the products to regional and foreign markets.
    The Mariner East 1 pipeline should eventually reach a capacity of 70,000 barrels a day. Once that happens, Sunoco could look at installing a second, entirely new pipeline to meet product demand. But Shields said that project is only a proposal at this point.
    “Mariner East 2 would parallel that right of way wherever possible, though we may need to acquire additional right of way and/or temporary work space to lay the pipe in certain areas,” Shields wrote in the email.
    “We have never broken out a cost for Mariner East 1. What we have put out as cost is “More than $600 million” combined for both Mariner East 1 and Mariner West, with the bulk of that being spent in Pennsylvania.”
    Shields wrote that Mariner West is a project that is scheduled to begin shipping ethane this month from western Pennsylvania through Ohio and Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.
    Reference : http://www.frackcheckwv.net/2013/11/24/10096/

    Bagaiamana Instalasi Pipeline di Laut Dalam? (Deepwater)

    Gazprom has successfully realized some of the world's largest offshore gas transportation systems, with pipelines in the 24-in. (61-cm) diameter range traversing water depths of more than 2,100 m (6,889 ft) with the Blue Stream I and II projects.
    Now, with South Stream, project planners are considering the challenges of installing 32-in. (81-cm) diameter pipeline in depths that will exceed 2,200 m (7,200 ft). The 900-km (560-mi) pipeline will extend from the Russian coast to a western landfall on either the Bulgarian or Romanian coastline. Some of the key challenges include:
    • Water depths exceeding 2,200 m (7,200 ft)
    • Relatively large pipeline diameter for given water depth
    • Difficult seabed conditions with steep slopes and geohazards
    • Potentially aggressive/corrosive subsea environments.
    The complexity of an offshore pipeline typically is expressed in terms of the water depth and diameter. While these are not the only drivers for a project's complexity, this expression does provide a good insight in the position of a project in relation to the current status of the industry.
    While a 24-in. pipeline in 2,150 m (7,053 ft) as installed for Blue Stream in 2003 was a major challenge at the time, that project did lead to the development of technology that is now considered proven, and similar projects have been realized in various regions in the world. With projects like South Stream, the industry is now exploring a new frontier and preparing for the next step.

    Seabed conditions

    Pipelines across the Black Sea need to traverse a deep abyssal plain bordered by steep and sometimes rugged continental slopes. While the deepwater of the abyssal plain leads to a high external pressure, which is important for the wall thickness requirement, the continental slope crossings also can be challenging, often with high risk of pipeline spanning and geohazards.
    Offshore section of the South Stream project.
    In deepwater, the current and wave effects are limited, causing little dynamic loading. Allowable pipeline spans are typically longer than in shallow water and governed by local buckling criteria. Excessive spans can be corrected either by shoulder shaving, support placements, or combination thereof; the tooling for both seabed intervention methods has been developed and is available.
    Geohazards are defined as features of the natural seabed that threaten the integrity of submarine pipeline systems. Such features include submarine channels, faulting, unstable slopes, landslides, mud volcanoes, seabed hydrates, pockmarks, debris, and turbidity flows.
    Historically, the risk posed by such features has been eliminated often simply by routing around them. However, for pipelines crossing a continental slope into deepwater, it becomes less likely that all such potential hazards can be avoided. Hence, engineering solutions must take into account the underlying geological and/or sediment movement processes.
    Geohazards can lead to significant loads on or displacements of a pipeline. In the Black Sea, the most relevant geohazards include:
    • Faults
    • Unstable slopes resulting in slumps or slides
    • Mudflows / mass gravity flows
    • Earthquake or wave induced liquefaction in the shore approach area
    • Mud volcanoes
    • Gas-expulsion features.
    All of the above features have been identified in the project area, and need to be addressed through rigorous survey and engineering. Earthquake-induced slope stability and mass gravity flows could pose a significant risk to the integrity of the pipeline at the Russian continental slope, and a similar situation exists for the western continental margin. An extensive feasibility survey has been performed to identify these risks and to develop preliminary route options. To further quantify these risks, it is important to perform a comprehensive design survey campaign to capture and analyze these geohazards. This can save a significant amount of time/costs on subsequent detailed surveys, studies, and construction.
    It is one of the best-known Black Sea properties: deeper than approximately 150 to 200 m (490 to 656 ft), Black Sea water does not contain oxygen, but does contain dissolved sulfuric hydride. Water mixing (driven by currents and waves) is needed for the oxygen captured from air and generated by algae at the sea surface to reach lower layers of the sea. In the Black Sea, there is extremely little vertical water mixing, resulting in the world's largest stratified water body.
    For the Blue Stream project, the environment of the Black Sea was classified as sour (or “H2S containing”) based on extensive measurement campaigns and supported by historical research data that showed accelerated corrosion rates in parts of the Black Sea environment. The likely cause of the corrosion was identified as a combination of H2S and sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB). Detailed water and soil tests are being performed for the South Stream project to establish the chemistry of the Black Sea environment over the vertical water column, as well as the top soil to a depth of 4 to 6 m (13 to 19.7 ft) below the seabed surface.
    Contrary to normal sour service pipelines in which sour medium is introduced inside of the pipe, the Black Sea environment may cause H2S exposure to the outer surface of the pipe. This service condition applies over the system lifetime. It is difficult to quantify, since it depends on highly localized soil conditions and pipe/soil/water chemical interactions over the complete length and lifetime of the system. When present, high H2S concentration is typically found at a depth of 2 to 4 m (6.5 to 13 ft) below the seabed. Its effects on the pipe steel and welds are being investigated.
    Since there are no concepts readily available to mitigate an external H2S-containing environment after pipeline operation, it is essential to correctly assess the associated risks and costs. For South Stream, this issue is being investigated in detail through an extensive geochemical survey and analysis program, as well as a detailed material testing and development program.

    Hydraulic performance

    For a project like South Stream, the investment involved is considerable and the ability to transport significantly more gas at limited additional cost improves the commercial performance of the project. Hence, an increase in diameter has significant benefits for the project economics, enabling more gas to be transported over longer distances. As part of project analysis, planners have examined the typical relationship between inlet pressure and outside diameter for different throughputs for a 900-km (560-mi) pipeline. The research showed that a diameter increase from 24 to 32-in. allows twice the volume of gas to be transported. While the friction loss increases exponentially for smaller diameters, it also increases with the higher velocities required to transport the same volume through a smaller pipe. While this figure only relates to a typical pipeline length, the same considerations apply for shorter distance pipelines, justifying the desire to implement larger diameter pipelines for deep water application. For inlet pressure requirements up to 30 MPa (4,350 psi), the application of existing and field proven technologies is available. No technology gap is foreseen.
    For pipelines as long as South Stream, the minimum allowable arrival temperature requirement can become the governing factor rather than the pressure loss. The gas cools when ascending the continental slope and passing through the buried shore approach section on the receiving end. Good knowledge of pipeline settlement (and therefore soil conditions) and concrete coating becomes important to accurately predict the hydraulic performance of the system. In case that the in-situ sediment at the downstream shore approach is found to be susceptible to frost heave, it would be wise to consider engineered backfill.
    The parameter that strongly influences the system's thermo-hydraulic performance is the embedment on the continental shelf at the receiving end. Overall, embedment in the soft, often liquid clay of the Black Sea can easily be 50 to 100% or more of the diameter. Thermo-hydraulic performance is verified against existing operational information to provide additional certainty; given the importance of pipe burial, the hydraulic analyses will be revisited after geotechnical survey results are obtained and pipe burial has been calculated.
    Another parameter influencing the receiving temperature is the application of concrete coating. Concrete coating provides a thermal insulation in comparison to an uncoated pipe. One option being considered is to continue the deepwater wall thickness up to the receiving landfall, thereby reducing the extent of concrete coated pipe. While this would most likely result in a higher capex, the overall throughput capacity could be improved.

    Steel grade selection

    It is generally practical to apply the highest possible line pipe grade to minimize the wall thickness, weight, and cost of the pipeline. For deepwater offshore applications, DNV SAWL 450 has been used in numerous sour and non-sour conditions. DNV SAWL 485 grade has been produced almost exclusively for non-sour service, although recent developments and trials in sour service conditions have been initiated for small-diameter pipelines. Nevertheless, additional qualifications for H2S-resistant application are required to ensure the performance of DNV SAWL 485.
    Full-scale collapse test rig.

    Installability

    The combination of pipeline diameter and maximum water depth for South Stream exceeds that previously achieved in the worldwide pipeline industry. The first issue to be addressed in terms of overall construction feasibility is, therefore, the ability to install the selected pipeline dimensions in the deepwater segment of the route.
    Furthermore, the significant route length introduces additional challenges to maximize installation efficiency. Installation of the pipeline will require extension of the existing global pipelay installation capacity. In doing so, the success factors and experiences from previous record-setting pipeline projects such as Blue Stream and Nord Stream must be evaluated and applied where appropriate.
    The feasibility of the installation of the deepwater section of the route governs the overall system construction feasibility. As part of this process, the capabilities of the existing deepwater pipeline installation vessels are being assessed against the deepwater installation requirements on this project. The three existing deepwater pipeline installation vessels usually considered suitable for a project like South Stream are the Saipem S7000, Allseas Solitaire, and HMC Balder. Furthermore, the deepwater installation capacity will increase in the future if several newbuild vessels are completed on schedule. These include the Saipem FDS-2 and Castorone; the Allseas Pieter Schelte, and a new vessel being developed by Hereema Marine Contractors (HMC). In general, it has been concluded that installation is feasible using the existing deepwater installation vessel fleet. However, the assessment of the existing three deepwater pipeline installation vessels shows that all three vessels will require some modifications/upgrades to install the South Stream system safely and efficiently.

    Wall thickness

    Core to the capability to develop large diameter projects in deepwater is the wall thickness design in combination with the manufacturability of the linepipe.
    Full-scale collapse test pipe.
    For the pipe diameter and wall thickness under discussion, only two pipe manufacturing processes are feasible: JCOE and UOE.
    In the JCOE process, the plate is formed to a J-shape using a pressed module, step-by-step at a fixed width interval. Then using a similar method, the plate is formed to a C-shape until it obtains an O-shape. The pipe is subjected to cold expansion after tack weld and submerged arc welded at the inside and outside parts.
    The UOE process consists of forming the plate into U-shape and O-shape using a pressed module, followed by tack weld and longitudinal weld of the pipe. As opposed to the JCOE process, both the U-shape and O-shape are obtained using one-step forming. Thereafter the pipe is cold expanded to obtain the required dimension. For both pipe manufacturing methods, the current DNV code formulation results in a reduction of the compressive strength after the manufacturing process, with 15% compared with tensile strength.
    The wall thickness required for South Stream is at the limit of the leading mills' capability. One limitation for some mills is the capacity of the pipe-forming process (such as the capacity of the O-press). While this restriction may be avoided through a considerable investment in upgrade of the mill, the control of pipe properties in the weld area for such thick-walled pipes remains a major issue (in particular parameters such as ductility and toughness). For deepwater application, these pipe properties are critical to the pipe performance. Achieving the desired material parameters for the wall thickness required using standard calculation methods is on the edge of what can be produced. A small reduction in wall thickness can result in a major improvement in manufacturability, and thereby drive the actual feasibility of the project for a specific throughput and OD combination.
    For the deepwater section of the pipeline, the design is governed by the local buckling criterion. This condition occurs during installation at the pipeline sagbend where the pipeline will experience the most extreme combination of external pressure and bending. In the calculation of the required wall thickness for this design limit state, the following critical technological advances can be applied:
    • Recovery of collapse resistance through thermal aging
    • Tighter dimensional control on line pipe manufacture
    • Tight control on bending strain during installation
    • A partly displacement-controlled condition is applied in the design for the sagbend.
    The largest contribution to wall thickness optimization is from the recovery of collapse resistance through thermal aging. Pipe collapse resistance is linked to the pipe hoop compressive strength. Many studies including small-scale and full-scale tests have been performed in the past 20 years (for example Oman-India, Blue Stream, and Mardi Gras), evidencing that a significant recovery in collapse strength can be gained for DNV SAWL 450 steel (in the order of 30%). In fact, test results suggest the collapse resistance is recovered even beyond the original value.
    Using the current DNV F101 formulation, most mills, nowadays, indicate that they are able to produce pipe with a significantly improved fabrication factor, incorporating strength recovery through thermal aging. Thermal aging effect is the ability of steel to recover its strength due to strain aging. It is possible to take advantage of thermal aging through application of external coating, which usually takes place at the same temperature range as where the thermal aging process occurs.
    For a deepwater, large-diameter pipeline such as South Stream, using a thinner wall without compromising system reliability is desirable not only for the obvious economics in steel saving but also out of necessity, as blind compliance to the current international design codes would result in a wall thickness that is beyond manufacturability.
    To give the owner, designer, and manufacturer sufficient confidence, Gazprom has commissioned a full testing program, which is currently ongoing. This testing program includes full scale testing of as-received and thermally treated pipe joints, subjected to combined loading of external pressure and bending.

    Deepwater repair contingencies

    In the past, even though the probability of failure of a properly planned deepwater pipeline is small, the risk associated has been a concern because of the difficulties in making repairs. While the effort required remains considerable, current deepwater technology provides the tooling that allows repairs large-diameter, deepwater pipelines. Even within the region, repair systems are available for the water depth (Blue Stream) or diameter (Green Stream) under discussion. To combine these into a new application is relatively straightforward, with little technology gap.

    Conclusions

    A 24-in. pipeline in 2,150-m water depth or 32-in. pipelines in 1,400-m water depth are accepted by the offshore industry as proven technologies. The South Stream project is now investigating the feasibility of using larger diameters (such as 32-in.) in 2,200-m-plus water depths, and its successful construction will be another step-change for the offshore industry. The use of a larger diameter will provide obvious benefits for the project economics, allowing a considerably higher throughput; but this requires an advance application of existing technologies.
    For the present installation fleet, the installability of such a pipeline is complex but not governing. This capability will be further improved if the currently scheduled deepwater installation vessels are completed on schedule. Still, rigorous design is essential, regardless of the selected diameter.
    Key to the success of such projects is the manufacturability of the line pipe with the requisite wall thickness. The wall thickness required for large-diameter pipelines is on the edge of leading mills' capabilities. Several technology advances need to be applied to achieve feasibility, and a rigorous development program is ongoing for successful implementation.