Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90699

RISK BASED DESIGN SOLUTION FOR ROUTING A HIGH PRESSURE GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINE THROUGH A REGION OF GEOLOGICAL INSTABILITY
Mike Taylor Andrew Francis & Associates Ripley, Derbyshire, UK Chas Jandu Andrew Francis & Associates Ripley, Derbyshire, UK

Marcus McCallum Andrew Francis & Associates Ripley, Derbyshire, UK

Ray Northing NGUK Construction Gallows Hill, Warwick, UK

ABSTRACT If present, regions of geological instability are normally identified during the route selection study and a route through such locations will normally be rejected if a suitably practicable alternative route can be found. Therefore the consequential effects of a landslip on pipeline integrity rarely need to be considered. However, when an alternate route is not practicable, then a means of negotiating the landslip zone in a safe manner needs to be determined and adopted. One means of negotiating a landslip zone is to route the pipeline well beneath the slope using techniques such as horizontal directional drilling (HDD). However, the success of an HDD cannot be guaranteed in such situations and hence alternative solutions need to be considered even if only as a back-up. This paper describes a technique that was developed by a major UK high pressure gas pipeline operator with support from Andrew Francis & Associates Ltd (AFAA) to achieve a viable engineering alternative to HDD. The technique is based on a combination of structural reliability analysis (SRA) and quantified risk assessment (QRA) which was developed by modifying and customising an approach that the operator had developed and used previously for demonstrating the safe operation of gas transmission pipelines at design factors in excess of 0.72. The overall objective is to demonstrate that all associated risks have been reduced to levels that can be regarded As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). SRA begins with an identification of all credible failure causes and these are then analysed using a combination of structural mechanics based techniques and probability theory to

determine failure frequencies. For the present application, significant attention was given to the interaction between the moving land mass and the pipeline using 3-dimensional finite element analysis. The analyses were performed for a range of credible scenarios assuming a range of soil properties to establish the likelihood that failure would occur in the event of a land slide. These were then combined with an assessment of the event frequency to determine estimates of the failure frequency. Having established raw failure frequencies, the model was developed further to investigate the effects of introducing mitigating methods to reduce the failure frequencies, and hence risks, to levels that could be regarded as ALARP. The paper describes the philosophy and the salient features of the approach and illustrates the application using a case study. INTRODUCTION Regions of geological instability are normally identified during the route selection study, and a route through such locations will normally be rejected if a suitably practicable alternative route can be found. Therefore the consequential effects of a landslip on pipeline integrity rarely need to be considered. However, when an alternate route is not practicable, then means of negotiating the landslip zone in a safe manner need to be determined and adopted. The use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would place the pipeline so far below the land mass that could be subjected to a landslide such that any onerous affect of a landslide on pipeline integrity could be dismissed. However,

Copyright 2012 by ASME

the success of an HDD cannot be guaranteed in such situations, and hence alternative solutions need to be considered even if only as a back-up, to allow an open-cut installation technique to be used if an HDD approach were to fail. IGE/TD/1 [1] gives little direct guidance for engineers in this situation; it does, however, support the use of risk basedtechniques. Such techniques have been used previously to justify safely uprating parts of the National Transmission System [2] and a method based on an extension and customisation of these has been developed for the application to landslip zones. NOMENCLATURE ALARP AUT CBA FAD FEA HAZ HDD NDE PDF QRA SRA

In order to perform the required analysis, it is necessary to identify a verified and validated mathematical model for the purpose of predicting the conditions for failure due to a given cause. Such a model is often referred to a limit state function and describes the relationship between governing parameters that will exist at the onset of failure. As with any mathematical model there is a requirement to assign values to the input parameters. In structural reliability analysis these parameters can generally be classified as loads or resistances. Loads are those parameters which will threaten the integrity if increased and examples include operating pressure, external forces caused by landslip and features that cause deterioration to the pipewall such as corrosion and construction defects. For the present application, the stresses in the pipewall caused by the interaction between the pipe and the surrounding soil, during landslide conditions, are of particular concern. For this reason it is necessary to be able to predict these stresses in the landslip zones with a high degree of confidence and hence the requirement for detailed stress analysis using verified and validated finite element software. Resistances are those parameters that would improve the structural integrity if increased. Examples of these include material strength, material toughness and wall thickness. Good knowledge of values of these parameters is thus also very important. Making use of the predictive tools (limit state functions and stress analysis) described above, structural reliability analysis is used to take account of the various elements of uncertainty in the modelling and hence to produce failure probabilities and/or failure frequencies. Owing to the nature of landslides the failure of a pipeline can be predicted to occur at a particular location, which means that the probability of failure at most pipeline sections will be zero. Thus having established the particular locations at which the pipeline is most likely to fail using the results from the stress analysis, the next stage is to determine the risk levels at locations surrounding the pipeline, in order to determine if further mitigation is required. Failure Causes In the event of a landslip, the slipped mass will drag the pipe downslope and create significant longitudinal (axial) membrane and bending stresses which can be both tensile and compressive in nature. Stresses alone can be sufficient to cause pipe rupture failure, however, failure is most likely to occur in the vicinity of a girth weld and, in particular, within the heat affected zone (HAZ).

As low as reasonably practicable Automatic ultrasonic testing Cost based analysis Failure assessment diagram Finite element analysis Heat affected zone Horizontal directional drilling Non-destructive examination Probability density function Quantified risk assessment Structural reliability analysis

OVERALL METHODOLOGY The flowchart shown in Figure 1 provides a general walkthrough of the steps needed to determine if the construction of a pipeline in a landslip zone is feasible. Geological surveys and stability analyses are undertaken and if problems are envisaged, either during construction or during operation then a Cost Based Analysis (CBA) is undertaken to determine whether a re-route would be a practicable solution. If a re-route is not found to be practicable then the risks during construction and operation need to be assessed and reduced to acceptable levels. Accordingly, a detailed structural reliability analysis (SRA), which takes account of all potential failure causes, is used to determine the relevant frequencies. A Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) is then performed by combining the results of the SRA with the results of a failure consequence analysis in order to determine whether mitigation methods would be required to reduce risks to levels that can be regarded As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS (SRA) SRA has been used quite extensively in the UK gas transmission industry and was central to the justification of uprating of high pressure gas transmission pipelines [2]. The essence of the approach is to identify the potential failure causes and then to determine how likely a failure, due to a given cause, would be with the objective of showing that the failure frequency (and risk) is acceptably low.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Failure of the Girth Weld HAZ It is well recognised that the welding process can introduce defects which, if left undetected, can result in the failure of any loaded structure. For this reason welds are routinely inspected and, if necessary, repaired during construction. Additionally, when possible, the welding procedure and welding consumables are selected to try and achieve strength and toughness values for the weld material that are higher than those of the parent material. When these conditions prevail the weld is said to be overmatched. However, even when the weld is overmatched it is often the case that, within the transition region between the weld and the parent material, defects may still be present. The transition region is known as the heat affected zone and, in the case of a landslide, is considered to be the most likely location for a failure to occur. The contributors to girth weld failure are thus: High longitudinal stresses due to a landslip The existence of defects in the HAZ region Poorer material properties in the HAZ region Buckling Large pipeline deformation is possible from a landslip and buckling is a potential failure mode. Although not an ultimate limit state, a buckling check is required to confirm that the proposed design will still be able to allow serviceability of the pipeline. Full non-linear buckling analyses of locations of concern can be performed to formally establish whether buckling is an issue. Limit State Function The limit state function should consider failure from a combination of fracture and plastic collapse, using the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) method. Based on the BS 7910 [3] defect assessment procedure, a general limit state function can be formulated which describes a relationship between the fracture toughness, yield strength, wall thickness, and defect depth. In the most general situation, the defect can be considered to be acted on by four stress components, namely, primary membrane, primary bending, secondary membrane and secondary bending. This limit state takes the general form,
K r ( K IC , y , a, w, , , , ) = F ( Lr ( y , a, w, , ))
p m s m p b s b p m p b

F ( Lr ) = (1 + 0.5L2 ) 1/ 2 (0.3 + 0.7 exp(0.6L6 )) r r

F ( Lr ) = 0

Lr Lr max

(2)

Lr > Lr max

where Lr max is given by

Lr max = u / y

(3)

The parameter K r is defined by

Kr =
p s Ks K Ip (a, m , bp , w) + K Is (a, m , bs , w) + Ip , Lr K K IC I

(4)

where and Lr is defined by

Lr =
p ref ( a, L, m , bp , w) y

(5)

The plastic correction term is given by

= 1 , = 4 1 (1.05 Lr ) ,
L r 0 .8

0.8 Lr 1.05

(6)

=0,

1.05 Lr

where 1 is given by
1 = 0.1
K Is p K I / Lr
0.714

Ks 0.007 p I K /L r I

Ks + 0.00003 p I K /L r I

(7)

In the above, the stress intensity factor solutions

p K Ip (a, m , bp , w)
p ref ( a , l , m , bp , w )

and

s K Is (a , m , bs , w )

and

limit

load

are quite general and numerous expressions exist that are applicable to defects occurring in a broad range of geometrical features within loaded structures subjected to a variety of loadings. For this application we naturally use those solutions given in BS 7910 that are applicable to defects in girth welds. In particular, those solutions for fully circumferential, external and internal, surface defects and part circumferential, external and internal surface defects are used. the critical defect depth, a c ( K IC , w, y ,l , ) as a function of fracture toughness, wall thickness, yield strength, crack length (for part circumferential surface breaking defects) and angular orientation. The dependence on arises from the dependence of the stress components on this quantity. In this analysis the limit state function is used to determine

(1)

where K r is a measure of the proximity to fracture, Lr is a measure of the proximity to plastic collapse and the function F describes the failure assessment line and is given by

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Input Data Input data for the analysis are required for any parameters that affect the failure mode and these normally include the internal pressure, pipe material properties and geometrical dimensions. Probability Density Functions (PDFs) describing the variation in actual values of material properties may be found by analysis of a sample of measured values from mill test certificates and any fracture toughness tests performed. For the present study the stresses generated by the landslide and the effect of these on any girth weld defects are of particular importance. Owing to the nature of landslides, the failure of a pipeline can be predicted to occur at a locations where the stresses are highest, which means that the probability of failure at most pipeline sections will be zero. Detailed finite element stress analyses are thus used to establish the particular girth welds at which the pipeline is most likely to fail. Defect sizes Defects within the HAZ region cannot be eliminated. However, the number and sizes can be controlled by adopting good workmanship standards and using inspection techniques which can detect defects with a high degree of accuracy and reliability. The failure probability of a girth weld is given by,
2

The predicated landslips are modelled based on their shear surface profiles, which show the depth at which the unstable ground shears away from the stable ground beneath. For regions in which shear surfaces are parallel to the pipe axis, axial soil restraint will serve to drag the pipe in an axial direction. For regions in which the shear surfaces occur at high angles relative to the pipe axis, such as the landslip toe and entry locations, the stiffer vertical soil restraint will act and generate large vertical forces on the pipeline. Forced displacements calculated from the landslip length and slip surface angle are applied to each of the boundary nodes of the soil elements. Analysis of the models produced provides predicted stresses in the pipeline for specific landslip scenarios. A number of analyses are required to ascertain the most onerous landslide cases. SRA is used to determine the failure frequencies at the girth weld locations that are subjected to the peak stress levels. Individual and societal risk levels are then determined by combining the results of the SRA with the results of consequence of failure assessments based on building burning and escape distances, along with any other relevant consequence modelling. MITIGATION METHODS If unacceptable risks are determined from the SRA and QRA assessments, further mitigation must be introduced. A selection of potential methods is provided below. Profile Straightening In order to reduce the stresses at large bends, a straighter profile can be developed, in which bends are removed or lessened. This also reduces the potential for buckling of the pipeline to occur. Weld Improvement In order to reduce the probability of failures at girth welds, more stringent workmanship standards can be specified. Notably, a stipulation can be made that heat inputs should be controlled to ensure that residual stress profiles and fracture toughness values remain within prescribed limits. In addition, the use of inspection techniques that can detect defects with a higher degree of accuracy and reliability, such as Automated Ultrasonic Testing (AUT), can be adopted and used in conjunction with more stringent defect acceptance criteria at locations of highest risk. Pipe Spool Selection Pipeline string sequences can be optimized in order to ensure that the pipe spools with highest toughness, thickness, and strength are used in the areas of highest risk.

Pf =

2 p ( ) p
y 0 0 0

( K IC ) p(l ) p (a) dadl dK IC d y d

0 al

au

(8)

Where au and al are given by the maximum possible crack depth, and the critical crack depth respectively. If girth welds have an acceptable failure probability based on a risk assessment in the vicinity of the girth welds, then the weld is declared fit-for-purpose, and no further consideration is required. If this cannot be demonstrated, further mitigation is required. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Finite element models of the pipeline under landslide conditions can be constructed and analysed using general purpose FEA packages. Elements representing the pipeline are linked with elements modelling the soil surrounding the pipe. The pipeline operating pressure and temperatures and other applicable loads are then applied. Soil restraint calculations are performed using geological survey data from a number of boreholes along the route. Individual soil stiffness and ultimate load values are calculated for various positions for each direction of pipe movement, taking into account the depth of soil cover above the pipe.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Soft-fill Soft-fill, consists of bags filled with a controlled volume of expanded polystyrene beads, which are of known and consistent mechanical properties. These bags are positioned local to the pipeline, replacing the soil, at pre-determined locations, volumes and depths (Note: this method of using softfill to reduce excessive localised loads on the pipe caused by external soil to pipe interaction has been demonstrated to work successfully on many previous pipeline uprating projects). The low stiffness pertaining to the soft-fill material allows a large proportion of the landslide movement towards the pipe to be taken up via compression of the soft-fill, rather than distortion of the pipe. In areas where the angles of the soil movement to the pipe axis become excessive, the soft-fill can be positioned in a manner so as to absorb the impact of soil displacement. Calculations are required in order to determine a stiffness curve for use in the finite element analysis model, based on the softfill mechanical properties, the depth of the soft-fill, and the initial loads on the soft-fill. A previously used trench construction involving soft-fill is shown in Figure 3. CONCLUSION Risk based analyses can be used successfully to determine the mitigation required to allow the routing of high pressure gas pipelines through geologically unstable areas in situations where re-routing is not practicable. The methods can be used to show that Risks have been reduced to levels that can be considered to be ALARP.

REFERENCES [1] IGE/TD/1 Edition 5, Institution of Gas Engineers, Steel Pipelines for High Pressure Gas Transmission, 2008 [2] Francis, A., Batte, A.D. & Haswell, J.V., "Probabilistic Analysis to Assess the Safety and Integrity of Uprated High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipelines", Institution of Gas Engineers Annual Conference, Birmingham, UK, April 1997 [3] BS 7910, Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures, British Standards Institution, 2005.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

FIGURES
Perform Route Selection

Identify Slopes and Perform Desktop Studies on Selected Route Regarding Landslip Movement

Are There Any Steep Slopes of Concern with Known Movement?

No No Slope/Landslip Design Issues on Selected Route

Yes Perform Walkover Study and Boreholes & Map Out Geological and Topographical Data

Establish Effects to Cause Slope De-stabilisation

Perform Slope Stability Studies Taking Account of Causal Effects Including Pipeline Construction

Determine Extent & Magnitude of Slope Movement and Establish Slope FoS Based on Limit Equilibrium

Determine Mitigation Required to Allow Safe Construction Earthworks Slope Stabilisation Needs To Be Considered or Pipeline Route Changed Perform CBA and Determine Appropriate Method Determine Possible Re-Routes & Revised Cost No Design Not Feasible

Is Slope Stable For Temporary Works Constructability?

No

Is Solution Viable? Yes

Yes

No Is Slope Stable After Pipeline Installation?

Further Earthworks Slope Stabilisation Needs To Be Considered or Effects on Slope Movement on Pipeline Need to be Established

Determine Slope Stabilisation Requirements & Revised Cost Perform CBA and Determine Appropriate Mitigation No Is Solution Viable? Yes Design Not Feasible

Yes

Perform TD1 Edition 5 Stress, Deflection Assessment and Perform QRA & ALARP Assessment and Determine Any Pipeline Mitigation Options

Landslip Mitigated Proceed to Detail Design Incorporating Landslip Mitigation

Focus of this paper

Figure 1 Assessment Methodology

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 2 - Landslide Modelling

Soil

0.5m

Lytag

Varies

0.2m Sand

Geotextile Membrane Softfill

0.15 ~1.4

Figure 3 Construction with Soft-Fill Detail

Copyright 2012 by ASME