Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline Design

Part 2: Pressure Cycling

Leo Corcoran CEng MBA FIEI

20th October 2005

Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline Design Part 2 Page 1 of 6 20th October 2005
SCOPE

This report examines the pipeline operating range to determine the compliance of the
pipeline with pressure cycling requirements in BS 8010. The QRA reports at face value
indicate that the upstream pipeline could experience pressure cycling.

ANALYSIS

The Code of Practice BS PD 8010 2004 specifies restrictions in pressure cycling to

prevent fatigue failure. The following is the relevant extracts;

“6.4.6 Fatigue
6.4.6.1 General
All cyclic stresses due to pressure, thermal, or external loading, occurring during the entire life of the
pipeline, should be taken into account when establishing the predicted significance or effect of fatigue.
In the assessment of stress ranges, the effect of construction that can cause stress concentration should be
taken into account.
All cyclic stresses between the threshold limit and the maximum allowable design stress should be
addressed (see ASTM E1049).
NOTE 1 Typical sources of cyclic stresses include:
— transportation, installation and testing activities;
— dynamic stresses (wind, waves, currents, rivers, vortex shedding, road/rail and other traffic-induced stresses);
— pulsation-induced vibration (at or near stations, reciprocating pumps and compressors);
— vibrations caused by surge and product flow;
— full stress cycles (start-up to shutdown cycles);
— fluctuations in operational (pressure and thermal) cycles;
— external thermal stress cycles (above-ground pipelines);
— earthquakes and ground movements.
NOTE 2 Other issues that need to be considered include:
— differences in pipeline materials (in homogeneities in the material);
— differences in component thickness and geometrical tolerances (abrupt changes);
— material defects, weld cracks, incomplete fusion, corrosion, chemical attack, anything initiating defects that will allow crack
growth.
6.4.6.2 Fatigue life
The fatigue life of a pipeline is determined from the total number of full stress cycles plus the number of
equivalent stress cycles (i.e. range of stress cycles that are expected or experienced by the pipeline) which
could cause fatigue failure. Pipelines should be designed to provide a fatigue life that exceeds the proposed
design life of the pipeline.
The need for a fatigue analysis depends upon the number and value of stress cycles predicted to occur over
the operation life of the pipeline and should be assessed in accordance with 6.4.6.3. In the case of
revalidation it should be based on the actual number and known stresses experienced by the pipeline, plus
the predicted life. Where required, the fatigue analysis should be carried out in accordance with 6.4.6.4.
6.4.6.3 Assessment of need for fatigue analysis
Any engineering assessment undertaken to revalidate a pipeline for change of operating conditions,
including an extension of the design life, should include an assessment of the fatigue life.
A simplified assessment should be carried out to establish whether a pipeline fatigue analysis is required.
A fatigue analysis is not required if either:
a) the maximum hoop stress cycle experienced by the pipeline is less than 35 N/mm2; or
b) the system designed can be shown to replicate closely a previously analysed acceptable design.
NOTE Additional guidance on the requirement for a fatigue analysis can be obtained from:
— IGE/TD/1 Edition 4 for natural gas pipelines. This provides guidance on determining the fatigue life of pipelines constructed and
tested to IGE standards, made from materials conforming to API 5L and subjected to a high-level hydrostatic test (Clause 11);
— BS EN 13480:2001, Clause 10 for above-ground pipelines;
— ASME B31.3 and ASME BPVC-VIII-1 for pipelines designed in accordance with ASME standards;

Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline Design Part 2 Page 2 of 6 20th October 2005
— PD 5500:2003, Annex C. This includes criteria for establishing whether a detailed fatigue analysis is required, and gives
guidance on how to conduct a fatigue analysis.
BS EN 13480 and PD 5500 can require support from BS 7608 for the appropriate equivalent material S–N curves.
6.4.6.4 Fatigue analysis
A fatigue analysis should be carried out to determine the fatigue life of the pipeline unless shown otherwise
in 6.4.6.3. The fatigue life is dependent upon the number and range of stress cycles that are expected to
occur, and the maximum size of defect that can exist.
The fatigue analysis may be carried out using one of the standards listed in the Note to 6.4.6.3 together
with an appropriate S–N curve (i.e. one that is specific to the material type, workmanship and quality
achieved during construction).
A fracture mechanics-based fatigue analysis should be applied where an appropriate S–N curve is not
available or is out of range (e.g. the stress range exceeds the upper level for the S–N curve). This approach
enables prediction of the growth of the maximum sized defect on the pipeline due to the spectrum of hoop
stress cycles expected to occur. The maximum size of defect is determined either through consideration of
workmanship quality or the level of hydrostatic test performed on the pipeline, and the number of full and
equivalent stress cycles experienced since the test. The recommended standards to apply these methods
are BS 7910 and API RP 579 for use with ASME materials.
NOTE 1 API RP 579 covers dents and similar deformations.
Account should be taken of the deleterious effect of pipe ovality, misalignments, material type change and
local shape deviations.
The analysis method, material properties and other input data used in the assessments should be
documented and fully justified.
The actual cycles accumulated during operation should be recorded and maintained for future evaluation
of the pipeline.
NOTE 2 The S–N curves recommended in BS 7608 and the fracture mechanics models and crack growth data recommended
in BS 7910 have been developed for application to normal structural joints which are in general accessible to inspection and have a
level of redundancy. Pipelines are non-redundant structures and accessibility for inspection is limited, so an appropriate factor of
safety should be included on the fatigue life predicted using both S–N and fracture mechanics techniques. The safety factor should be
selected and justified as part of the design fatigue analysis, taking into account accessibility for and reliability of inspection,
uncertainty in the number and value of stress cycles and the severity of consequences of failure. Safety factors typically applied to
pipeline fatigue design analysis range from 1 for non-hazardous, non-critical pipelines to 3–10 for hazardous pipelines. Where full
penetration high quality welds are assured the relevant (BS 7608) S–N curve can be assigned without the application of a safety
factor.
NOTE 3 These safety factors may be relaxed for pipelines that are located above ground provided the area of the defect can be fully
mapped and assessed.”

To assess the need for Fatigue analysis the Pipeline Design is tested in accordance with
clause 6.3.6.3 a)

“A fatigue analysis is not required if either:

a) the maximum hoop stress cycle experienced by the pipeline is less than 35 N/mm²; or
b) the system designed can be shown to replicate closely a previously analysed acceptable design.”

The following are computed Maximum Hoop Stress Cycles under different operating
conditions
6.4.2 Calculation of stresses
6.4.2.1 Hoop stress
The hoop stress, Sh, developed in the pipe wall at the internal design pressure should not exceed the
allowable hoop stress, Sah, given in 6.4.3.1. The hoop stress should be calculated using equation (3) for thin
pipe walls and equation (4) for thick pipe walls (the thick wall equation should be used when the Do/tmin
ratio is less than or equal to 20). This gives the maximum hoop stress encountered at the outside face of
the pipe wall.

Thin wall: Do = 508

tmin = 27.1

Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline Design Part 2 Page 3 of 6 20th October 2005
 Do/tmin 18.75
for Do/tmin < 20

Thick wall:

where Di is given by (Do – 2tmin). Di = 453.8

Equation (4) gives a more accurate calculation of hoop stress and always gives the lowest
value of maximum stress.
When the Do/tmin ratio is greater than 20, the difference between the stresses calculated
from the two formulae is less than 5 %.

Note IGE/TD/1 6.7 states that Variation of Hoop Stress ΔSh should be < 125 N/mm²

The following are calculation of Variation of Hoop Stress ΔSh under all operating
conditions.

Variation in Hoop Stress ΔSh for operating Pressures between 345 and 50barg
P1
Barg 345 300 272 250 200 175 150 120 100 75 50
Sh
N/mm² 307 267 242 223 178 156 134 107 89 67 45

345 0
300 40 0
272 65 25 0
250 85 45 20 0
200 129 89 64 45 0
175 151 111 86 67 22 0 Operating Range
150 174 134 109 89 45 22 0
120 200 160 135 116 71 49 27 0
100 218 178 153 134 89 67 45 18 0
75 240 200 175 156 111 89 67 40 22 0
50 263 223 198 178 134 111 89 62 45 22 0
P2 barg ΔSh N/mm²

Note: ΔSh indicates Hoop Stress Variation between P1 maximum pressure and P2
minimum pressures during a pressure cycle.

Black Condition indicates operating condition where fatigue analysis is not required
under BS PD 8010 clause 6.3.6.3 a)

Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline Design Part 2 Page 4 of 6 20th October 2005
Blue Condition indicates operating condition where Fatigue Analysis is required under
BS PD 8010 clause 6.3.6.3 a)

Red Condition indicates conditions where the operating conditions fall outside the
allowable conditions specified in IGE/TD/1 clause 6.7.2.1
“If a life of 15,000 stress cycles is required (equivalent to one cycle per day over 40
years) the maximum daily variation in hoop stress should be limited to 125 N/mm2”

ALLSEAS DOCUMENT NUMBER : 8820/D835-01

JPKENNY DOCUMENT NUMBER: 05-2102-02-F-3-835 states:
“6.1.3 Pressure Cycling
A pressure cycle is defined by the range of the pressure variation, and the frequency of the
cycle. The range of a variation is defined as the difference between the peak value and lowest
value of the pressure variation and the frequency is defined as the period of time which
elapses between the identical point in two subsequent cycles (e.g. two subsequent peaks).
The pressure cycling constraints for a pipeline are governed by the material fatigue limits and
are dependent on both the range and the frequency of the pressure variations. These factors
are related and vary inversely with one another, i.e. a high cycling frequency would have a
lower permissible range than a lower cycling frequency.
Generally the diurnal range of pressure cycling for the onshore section of the pipeline is small
as the pipeline is not feeding end-users directly but is “buffered” from the effects of the
varying end-user demands by the long pipeline at the other side of the terminal. It is assumed
that the Terminal will operate on a steady state flow of 350 mmscfd and a steady pressure
regime. Any variation in flow would be effected by variation of the choke valve settings at the
manifold, with the aim to achieve a set arrival pressure at the Terminal.
The range of pressure cycling is therefore considered to be low (particularly in comparison to
the design pressure). Pressure and stress fatigue limits are considered to be negligible, and
pressure cycling is not considered to represent a credible failure mode.
Pipeline fatigue is addressed in the Mechanical Design Report [Ref. 19].”

The above Statement makes a number of assumptions;

1. That the Bord Gais demand from Ballinaboy will be a steady state of 350 mmscfd
2. That the variations in pressure will be controlled by variations of the chock valve
settings at the offshore manifold.

The above assumptions cannot be taken at face value for the following reasons;

• No analysis is provided of the Bord Gais expected diurnal demand at Bellanaboy.

• No Flow calculation are supplied to support the assertion that the offshore chock
valve can control pressure cycling at the onshore section of the upstream pipeline
under all operating conditions.

The operating parameters of Corrib Gas is stated as follows;

“3.3 Operational Parameters
The following information has been taken from the Design Basis [Ref. 5].
Design Flow Rate: 350 mmscfd
Maximum Flow Rate: 350 mmscfd
Design Pressure: 345 barg

Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline Design Part 2 Page 5 of 6 20th October 2005
Normal Operating Pressure Range (onshore section): 50 - 150 barg
Normal Operating Pressure (onshore section, at start of field life): 120 barg
Wellhead Shut In Pressure (WHSIP) (at start of field life): 345 bara
Wellhead flowing pressure (at start of field life): 272 bara”

The design reports do not state a minimum flow rate which would provide an indication
of the expected pressures under which the pipeline would operate. Also no information is
provided of the maximum capacity of the pipeline. If the pipeline is operating near it’s
maximum flow capacity then it would be almost impossible for the choke valve to control
pressure cycling at the end of the upstream pipeline i.e. the onshore section routed
through Rossport.
Also under a variable flow profile it may be possible to maintain the pressure within the
scope of the code of practice but only at the expense of creating a pressure cycle
immediately downstream of the choke valve effectively transferring any potential
problem to the offshore section of the pipeline.

More recent information released from the developer states that the upstream pipeline
would operate between 150 and 120 bar, which would indicate that the pipeline would
experience a maximum hoop pressure cycle of 27 N/mm². For pressure cycling between
these levels the pipeline would operate within the requirements of clause 6.4.6.3 a).

This new information is a variance with previously published information and should be
verified.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary analysis indicates that pressure cycling could be a problem over the full
potential operating range of this pipeline. The recent information released by the
developer indicates that the pipeline will operate within a range which does not require
fatigue analysis.

This information should be verified as it appears to be in conflict with previously released

information.

Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline Design Part 2 Page 6 of 6 20th October 2005