PROTECTING MAINLINE VALVES FROM ICE FLOWS

John W. Hansen, PE
Enbridge
119 N. 25
th
Street East
Superior, WI 54880
Tel: 715-394-1522
Email: john.hansen@enbridge.com




ABSTRACT
In the spring of 2009, the Red River of North Dakota flooded
six feet deep and ten miles wide in Pembina County. The flood
was followed by arctic temperatures that froze the floodwaters
8-inches thick and also froze around the stems of seven
isolation valves. These isolation valves were for pipelines
carrying crude oil and natural gas liquid (NGL). The pipeline
sizes varied from 36-inch to 18-inch diameters. The ice around
the valves was subjected to wind forces of 50 mph putting the
valves at risk. Also, when the second spring runoff came, the
river current pulled ice down through the valley. This ice flow
took out trees, power poles, and damaged a couple of isolation
valves. The damage was minimal, but could have been worse.
No leaks occurred.
This paper will explore the unique problems associated with
protecting the valves and delve into keys and principles that led
to an innovative solution. Technical issues will be discussed
that will help future projects solve problems on how to protect
equipment from ice flows. The underlying soils were known for
their excessive settlements and low shear strength. The soil was
predicted to settle 6-inches after adding eleven feet of fill for
protective berms. The preliminary pipe stress calculations
based on the predicted settlement of 6-inches put the allowable
pipe stress near the limits of acceptability. The valve site was
also located miles from the nearest road. The forces from the
ice loads in a river can be enormous and engineering judgment
had to be used to obtain a practical solution.

INTRODUCTION
The seven valves were located in Pembina County, ND a few
hundred yards from the Red River. The pipelines were large
diameter pipe varying in size from 36-inch to 18-inch
diameters. The pipelines were 3 to 5 feet deep. The valves were
slab gate valves. Four of the valves were automated. The
actuators were 5 to 9 feet above the ground. The pipelines
carried crude oil and NGL. The actuators were electrical EMI
and Limitorque brands. These valves were installed near
waterway crossings so that if a leak was found under the river,
the lines could be isolated and repaired.

(See Attachment 1 MP 801 Aerial) Note the parcel T-1034
is a square mile and can be used as a reference for scale. The
valve site is in parcel T-1034A and T-1032A. You will also see
the 89
th
NE bridge that was removed in 2006. The Red River is
shown and it flows north.

In 1999, the flood waters rose to near a 500 year event and
water levels were at ten feet deep at the site. No photos of site
are available and basically the site was in the middle of lake 20
miles wide and the actuators were underwater. No ice was
present. In 2006, the access bridge was removed because the
bridge was considered unsafe. Then, in 2009 the Red River
flooded again. However, this flood was followed by a cold snap
and the floodwaters froze 6 to 8 inches thick.

(See Attachment 2 Ice flow aerial view - Spring 2009) The
big slab of ice near the planes engine is about mile long.
The ice slab is just hitting the five of the seven valves. A 6 x 8
fiberglass valve building is just ahead the ice slab.

This event caused some damage to the valves and the
infrastructure around the valves. The 20-inch valve where the
actuator was at the same elevation as the ice was damaged the
most. The stem was bent and the manual wheel was crushed.
No oil leaked out. The other valves were protected by catwalk
structures and the other three actuators were above the flood
1 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90257
waters. In addition to the valve damage, catwalks were bent
and a power pole was snapped in two.
(See Attachment 3 Damaged Valve 2009) This is a 36-inch
valve. The actuator was above the ice slab. You can see that the
catwalk was damaged, but the valve was not.

We wanted to reduce the risk to the valves and provide access
for maintenance. We investigated the soils and analyzed pipe
stress, and involved the Companys operations department to
come up with a workable solution.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The original design solution for this problem was a horseshoe
shaped berm which was supported across the pipelines by a
reinforced slab on grade. We tried to make this solution work,
but became uncomfortable with this approach for the following
reasons.

The site had poor soils. Early soil tests showed that the
horseshoe berm would settle 6-inches. The soils would
consolidate in the deeper levels from 20 feet to 100 feet deep.
A preliminary pipe stress analysis showed that 6-inches of
settlement would cause excessive stress on the pipe. We did not
think that the floating concrete slab would be a much benefit
because the settlement was based on weight and that settlement
was going to be in the deep layers. So, we started looking at
other options.

We looked at protective piles. However, the force from the ice
would tip them over. Ice is a unique substance. We ran
calculations based on the strength and thickness of the ice.
Eventually, ice will crush against itself. We looked at ice rated
at 40 psi, 140 psi, and 200 psi. The load was put at 8.5 feet
high. We found out that the piles would tip over. There was
concern that any piles that were put in could put excessive force
on the pipe or valves if they contacted them when they were
pushed over. We looked at adding domes over the valve, but
these still had risk of failure and interfered with maintenance.

(See Attachment 4 Alternative Concept - Dome Protector)
We also looked at re-directing the ice with structures, but the
same concern kept coming up. We did not want add something
that may get pushed into the pipe or valves.

We considered relocating the valves, but that would be over $10
million. In the future, one would be better off to raise the
elevation of the site above the floodplain before putting valves
in. It is usually required to put valves as near as practical to
river crossings. Try to keep new valves above the floodplain.

We had other issues. There was limited access to the site. The
bridge was out. We would have to replace the bridge or mat our
way in. The cost mats in and out was $600,000 which was
more than a bridge. The construction season was short and the
surface turned to goo after every rain. The roads werent
plowed. We had a lot of problems to solve just to get to this
site.

THINGS STARTED TO TAKE SHAPE
Good access to the site was one goal we wanted to accomplish.
We had looked at many access options such as temporary
bridge, mats, texas crossing, or wait until the land was dry. All
the alternatives were expensive and would leave us with no
ready access to a vital site when the project was over. We
began to plan for the project assuming a bridge was in. This
would allow access to the site and would allow for future
maintenance. Having good access is an important key to
remember when designing a valve site.

Rather than our company building the bridge and turning it over
to the County, we thought that maybe the County could build
the bridge since they would own and maintain the bridge. We
approached the County and communicated our concerns. We
then started working together on an agreement and in a month,
the County was willing to build and maintain a bridge for us and
we were going to supply the funds for construction.

EXECUTION
We needed a clear picture of what we wanted; then, we could
execute in that direction. We got away from engineering
calculations and started focusing on drawings, sketches, and
graphs. We started holding WebEx meetings on a weekly basis.
Many people attended these meetings. We had people from
integrity in Canada, from Operations and Maintenance in
Minnesota, from Safety, Contracts, Drafting, ROW,
Environmental, Legal, and Consulting Engineers. The meetings
were no more than one hour in length. The agenda was
developed weekly and we had a project schedule that was
reviewed. Critical concerns were addressed. These WebEx
meetings allowed us to more forward as a group.

From these WebEx meetings we were able to collect depth of
cover data, pipe thickness and integrity data, determine future
access needs, operating pressures, and future plans in this area.
The pipeline information was put on a drawing for the seven
pipelines and this was used in our computer model for pipe
stress analysis.

The design was completed after looking at many options. The
new design was impressive. It was elegant and it achieved the
project goals of protecting the valves and allowing access for
maintenance. There were three parts of this project. The first
part was the bridge, the second part was the berm or valve
protection, and the third part was the valve automation. The
Valve Automation Project will automate all seven valves and
this work too was considered in our design. We will place the
automation and controls building on top of the berm out of the
floodwaters. The valve stems will be extended to keep the
actuators out of the 100 year floodplain and the berm will
protect them from ice damage.
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME

(See Attachment 5 The Parallelogram) There are two berms
nested together with a road through them. A large parking area
was provided for semi-trailers for future maintenance projects.

This new design had costs that exceeded the budget of the
original design. The additional funding was easily approved
because Team involvement was high. Yes, the project costs
were high, but there was great risk if not done. Managers at all
levels understood what thorough planning and thought process
we had gone through. This process did not take long. We took
about six weeks to re-scope and re-fund and add $1.6 million to
an original $1.1 million dollar project.


ENGINEERING PROCESS
We collected all the information we had on the pipelines and
put the information on a drawing and created a model. We sent
out survey crews with pipeline maintenance crews in January to
probe the pipelines and verify location and depth. We sent out a
drill rig to do cone penetrometer tests. So, now we had the
actual location and condition of the existing pipeline and we
had the information on the soils. We placed the berm on the site
model and determined the soil settlement as a result of the
berms. Then, we transferred the settlement data to the pipeline
and ran a 3D Finite Element analysis on a computer program.
The first run showed that we were putting stress on the elbows
on a cross over line. So, we relocated the berm. This required
doing another soil settlement analysis. Then, this information
was transferred to the model. The relocation of the berm
reduced the stress at the elbows and we met all of the conditions
in ASME B31.4, internal and external stress, expansion stress,
longitudinal stress, and equivalent combined stress. (See
Attachment 7 for Typical Table of Stress Calculation Values)

The berm design took into account the ice load and the
floodwater level. We designed for a 100 year flood (9 feet deep
at the site). The ice load was first 5000 pounds per square foot
applied at a level of 6.5 to 8.5 feet above the toe of the berm.
This represented a two feet thick ice slab. This resulted in a
berm width 22 wide at the top and 11 feet tall. The slope was 3
to 1 which made the base 88 feet wide. The total length of the
berms was 1700 feet. The original berm design was design for
granular material; however, a new design was later developed
using locally sourced clay. Clay is not as good as granular
material at resisting shear, but it was lighter. A decision was
made to design the berm to handle 2500 pounds per square foot
ice load applied at 8 feet up on the berm. This would be the
equivalent of one foot of ice. This seemed reasonable because
it was felt that the thicker ice would have already drifted by
before the peak flood elevation would have been reached. We
also felt more comfortable having the lighter weight clay over
the pipe which should help to reduce settlement over the pipe.



CONTRACTING PROCESS
We used a fixed price contract. We wanted the innovative
approach of someone who has a vested interest in seeing the
project completed within budget. This required us to detail out
how they would work over our pipelines. So, we laid out a plan
for how the Contractor would work over our pipelines. The next
concern we had was access to the site. Remember the County
was building the bridge. The County would not have the bridge
completed until August 21. That would not give the Contractor
much time to build the berm before winter. We really did not
know how the access and the weather would work out. We
assumed the Contactor would start with some work around the
pipelines in July. This turned out to be incorrect and contractor
could not access site until late August because of an
unseasonably wet summer.

We had held a pre-bid meeting in April at the Thief River
Pipeline Maintenance (PLM) Shop about one hour from the
site. The MP 801 site was five feet underwater during the pre-
bid. Contractors would not get to see the site except from
photos we had. The one thing that we did at the pre-bid was to
ask for Contractor options. This turned out to be the most
important thing. The options allowed for a Contractor to give a
solution or a cost savings alternative. The costs came in and the
bids were $1 million over budget. However, one Contractor
proposed using clay rather than granular material for a $1
million dollar savings.

Going back to our early team involvement, this option had
already been considered. It was one of those ideas where in the
planning process, this topic kept coming up. So, we knew the
issues and the risks. This made it an easier decision to switch
to the clay option. We were prepared for the additional risks for
using clay and we started to implement risk mitigation
measures.

Timing was critical for this projects success. We were hoping
for a dry summer. Instead we got one of the wettest. We
needed some dry weather so we could work over pipelines and
avoid making a mess. However, things changed. September and
October was one of the driest falls on record. The bridge was
completed at the end of August. We mobilized and completed
building the berm in 8 weeks as planned.
(See Attachment 6 Competed Aerial View) I believe we
would have found a way to build this berm no matter what
weather came, but it might have been the next year. I would like
conclude with a review of the keys to this projects success.

CONCLUSION
High involvement from team members is important. WebEx is a
valuable tool. The team members were from Edmonton to
Superior. We met weekly for two months. We set a path
forward for two years with those one hour weekly meetings.

3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Collaboration among team members is important. The Project
Team completed planning and design for the berm in two
months. Engineers completed final design in two weeks.

Innovation is important for cost savings. When we switched to
clay we worked with experts in clay and used the latest fiber
reinforcement techniques for soil stabilization. The berm
surface was stabilized with turf reinforcement mating (TRM),
seeding, and then we covered top surface with an erosion
control blanket. (See Attachment 8 for Construction Details)


ATTACHMENTS
1. MP 801 Aerial View
2. Ice flow Aerial View Spring 2009
3. Damaged valve 2009
4. Alternative Concept Dome Protector
5. The Parallelogram
6. Completed Aerial View 2011
7. ASME B31.4 Results Table
8. Construction Details

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LHB Engineering, Duluth, MN
Joe Litman, PE
Matt Ryan, PE
Barr Engineering, Duluth, MN
Steve Marshik, PE
Travis Davidsavor, PE
Jamie LePage, PE
Gale-Tec Engineering, Minneapolis, MN
Steve Gale, PE
Nathan Lichty, EIT
Veit Construction, Rogers, MN
Bart Anderson, Vice President
Tom Libbesmeirer, Project Manager
Superior Consulting, Duluth, MN
Bruce Larson, former Enbridge PLM
Tim Lustig, Geotechnical Engineer

Enbridge PLM
Jamie Nelson, Supervisor
David Kuznia, PLM Inspector
Tulsa Inspection Resources, Tulsa, OK
Richard Ehrke, Inspector

REFERENCES
1. ASME B31.4-2009
2. Enbridge MP 801 Technical Design Memorandum
Barr Engineering May 20, 2011
3. Enbridge MP 801 Valve Site Study Gale-Tec
Engineering August 31, 2011
4. LHB Construction Drawings for MP 801 Site

4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
ACCESS BRIDGE
VALVE SITE
NORTH
ONE MILE
ATTACHMENT 1 -MP 801
AERIAL VIEW
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME
6' X 8' VALVE
BLDG.
1/2 MILE SHEET
OF ICE HITTING 5
VALVES
ATTACHMENT 2 - ICE FLOW
AERIAL VIEW-SPRING 2009
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME
ATTACHMENT 3 - DAMAGED 36-INCH
VALVE - LOOKNG EAST
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME
ATTACHMENT 4-ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPT - DOME PROTECTOR
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
E
A
A
B
B
B
B
D
D
A
A
C
C
E
E
G
G
E
D D
F
F
MP 801
TM
ATTACHMENT 5
THE PARALLELOGRAM
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
ATTACHMENT 6-
COMPLETED AERIAL
VIEW LOOKING
SOUTH
ANTICIPATED ICE
PATH
10 Copyright 2012 by ASME

DW>^Z
8 L
u
v
u
v
P Sl 1 n 8 1 S 8
C C Sl Sl C n 8 C S 8
A C Sl 1 n 8 1 S 8
Al L x SM?S
L C S S
LC
A 8 1 P
C l
L
S
SM?S

SM?S

M l
L
S

M l
L
S
C
A S
C A
L S

SM?S
M
L S

M
L S

C A
S
C A
L
S

SM?S
M
L
S
M
L
S
C
A S
C A
L
C S

SM?S

SM?S

M
L
C S

M
L
C S

C A
S
P
C
A
P
C
A
P
C
A
P
C
A
P
C
A
P
C
A
M S
8 C C 1
L C n
n L
v
l L S SP
L S S
L
L S S
L
11 Copyright 2012 by ASME
MP 801
TM
ATTACHMENT 8 - CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS
12 Copyright 2012 by ASME