Experiences with new DNV pipeline codes

Tommy Bjrnsen Det Norske Veritas Milestones in Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Research Japan Norwegian Seminar Tokyo, Japan, 27 May 2003

MANAGING RISK

Content of presentation
Introduction Historical perspective Basis for the new DNV codes Development of the new codes Industry feedback Further development Summary and conclusions

MANAGING RISK

DNV Objective To safeguard life, property and the environment

Foundation established 1864

MANAGING RISK

DNV - Main Industries

Shipping

Oil & Gas

Process

Rail

Automotive

MANAGING RISK

DNV Pipeline Services

Assisting customers in:
Selecting optimum technology and solutions Qualifying technology (incl. R&D) Verifying that technology is correctly applied

Based on:
An in-house multidiscipline technology environment A close collaboration with research institutions Knowledge and experience from all over the world
MANAGING RISK

The Blue Stream Project

2 x 24 pipelines, WT 31.8 mm Offshore length 390 km Project challenges:
Water depth of 2150 m Sediments with H2S content Seismic activity Sediment flow Difficult topography The required technological innovation Tight schedule Development of repair systems
MANAGING RISK

Pipelines in a historical perspective

1000 AC: First known gas pipelines made of bamboo, in Japan

MANAGING RISK

Pipelines in a historical perspective

First oil pipeline was built for the Nobel brothers in Baku, 1878
About 10 km and 76 mm diameter Balakhany fields to Nobel's refinery in Cherny Gorod Decreased transport cost with 95% The whole pipeline was paid back in one years time!!
MANAGING RISK

Pipelines in a historical perspective

Pipeline from Baku to the Black Sea in 1905
8 inch diameter 800 km's long

MANAGING RISK

Historical perspective

Design code development

In the US, the development of a national pressure piping code was discussed as early as 1915 In March 1926, the American Standards Association initiated project B31 In 1935 the American Tentative Standard Code for pressure piping, B31, was published In 1951, B31.4 & 8 were published

MANAGING RISK

Historical perspective

AS M B31 E B3 1.4 .8 &

AS ME

B31

The first limit state based Pipeline design code with calibrated safety factors!
DN

1900

1950 Allowable stress design

DNV involvement in Pipelines SUPERB 1992-1996

MANAGING RISK

VR ule s fo DN rS VR ubm ule s fo a r in rS eP ubm ipe line BS a r in DN 801 sys eP V R 0:3 ipe tem ISO ul line s1 es 976 DN 136 fo sys V O 23 r Su tem ffsh bm s1 a r in 981 ore eP Sta ipe nda line rd F sys -10 tem 1 s1 996

Design code development

192 6

Limit state d. 2000

Historical perspective

Premises for the best pipeline code

Which one is the best design code?
The one that gives the thinnest wall? The one that gives the thickest wall?

MANAGING RISK

Historical perspective

Premises for the best pipeline code

The first requirement of the code is: Document sufficient safety level Given the first premises, the second is: Give the lowest total life-cycle cost

MANAGING RISK

Historical perspective

Premises for the best pipeline code

What is sufficient safety level?
Traditional design codes have a historical record accepted by society at large, hence they do provide sufficient safety level for traditional pipeline design in general For new applications and for optimisations (concepts, temperatures, pressures, water depths etc.) limit state based design codes are required to ensure consistent safety level

MANAGING RISK

Historical perspective

Premises for the best pipeline code

Lowest life cycle cost Offshore pipelines cost appr. US$ 1000/m Cost optimisation
As installed pipeline cost
Materials 30 % Intervention 20 %

Engineering / Admin 10 %

Installation 40 %

MANAGING RISK

Design format - Expressions

Limit state methodology
Consider each failure mode independent

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

A deterministic design criteria with partial safety factors (One interpretation of the limit state format)

Structural reliability - probabilistic analyses

Tool to, for a given failure probability, calculate partial safety factors
MANAGING RISK

Typical limit states in pipeline design

Pressure containment Local buckling
Collapse Combined loading Propagating pressure

Fatigue due to
Pressure variations Temperature Vortex shedding

Fracture
Fracture propagation (Content dependent) ECA

Global buckling
Snaking Upheaval buckling

On bottom stability Trawling interference

Ovalisation Ratcheting

MANAGING RISK

Collapse and propagating buckling

MANAGING RISK

Design format

LRFD versus ASD

ASD
Easy to use Less checks (Should) Give(s) same result as LRFD for normal design Includes (implicit) design rule of thumbs

LRFD
Consistent safety level Flexible Allows optimisation Less dependent on assumptions Can easier be extended to new scenarios
MANAGING RISK

SUPERB Project
Objective
Development of a SUbmarine PipelinE Reliability Based design guideline and in that respect to review and update design recommendations and criteria for pipeline design

MANAGING RISK

SUPERB-

The Project
Phase 3M
Synthesis Finalization Guidelines

Pre-phase Phase 1M Phase 2M

Pilot studies Safety Technology assessment development State of art Revised Safety Technology and Calibration Procedures Draft Guideline US$ 500 k US$ 500 k

US$ 100 k

US$ 400 k

MANAGING RISK

Database; Model uncertainty

SUPERB
Property Burst Collapse S=0,
Seamless, UOE

Data points 76 (22 SUPERB) 3500 (39) 15-20 148

Projects Validity X52-X120 6<D/t<25 X65-X70 16<D/t<45 X52-X70 X52-

(6-7)

Collapse+axial Collapse+moment Moment

>100 Small pipes (+50 FEM) Internal pressure+ 2 (+100 FEM) moment Burst (corroded) >100 (60) (+500 FEM)

MANAGING RISK

Database; Material (Welded only)

SUPERB

Property Data points Projects Validity Yield >1000 >20 17 >5 X60-X80 X60-X80 X60-X80 100
MANAGING RISK

Ultimate >1000 Y/T CTOD >100 291

New DNV pipeline codes

DNV96 was published on the basis of the results from the SUPERB project This included:
Limit state based design Calibrated safety factors Further benefit to improved material quality (ductility and yield stress distributions)

DNV96 was updated and published as DNV-OS-F101 in 2000 An extensive list of additional documents supporting the main pipeline standard
MANAGING RISK

Offshore Service Specification DNV-OSS

Shelf Compl.

DNV Offshore Codes

ss
Cert.

Cla

Tech nol

Offshore Standard DNV-OS

&S afe ty

ogy

A B C
Structures

D E

F
es elin Pi p

l Facili Specia

Systems

Mate rials

ity

&R

Recommended Practices DNV-RP

Qu al

s iser

ties

MANAGING RISK

DNV Offshore Codes

Offshore Standard (OS)

Technical requirements only Harmonised with ISO
ISO 13623 Pipeline Transportation Systems ISO 3813-3 Linepipe

Limit state based design criteria Calibrated safety factors

MANAGING RISK

DNV Offshore Codes

Recommended Practices (RP)

Residual strength Corroded pipes
(British Gas) Mechanical Pipeline Couplings

Under development Existing

Trawling
DNV-RP-F10X DNV-RP-F10X Design of Design of HT/HP HT/HP Pipelines Pipelines

Protection
(Statoil)

Reeling JIP
(Sintef & TWI)

Gudesp (DHI) Design of Titanium Risers Multispan

(DHI, Snamprogetti)
MANAGING RISK

Hotpipe
(Statoil, Shell Snamprogetti)

DNV Offshore Field Development Blue Stream (BP) Tangguh Codes DNV-OS-F101 -system Mardi Gras Pipeline transportation
Situated in Adma-OpcoHead" area of West Irian the MMS approved Twoof DNV-OS-F101 for this "Birds use 610 mm diameter pipelines Nam Con Son Russia to Turkey across from Two highThe Upstreaminjection facilities are Jaya,. pressure gas BP Amocoproject platform West Natuna Pipeline Project the pipelines for the Zakum field. ThisBlack Sea. Maximum water approximately 360 km, 32 submarine pipeline 25km km apart with conventional Conoco A depth 2150 meters. Length is was the firstA 600 km, 28 submarinesubmarine project that exported platforms and gas being applied by ispipeline from the offshore field 400 km to complex 2 x to the Onshore the DNV96from the offshore field complex in to Middle length, pipelines, 20km the30km in East. terminal. in the onshore gas Receiving Facility (ORF). The gas the onshore Indonesian waters to has a relatively high CO2 and H2S content and includes free water. gas terminal in Singapore. Gazprom/ENI The World Arco including Crazy Horse (6300ft) Zakum Gas Injection Project Several fields

MANAGING RISK

DNV Offshore Codes

Reception from the industry

Comparing DNV96 to traditional pipeline design is like comparing a modern computer to a computer from the 1980ies...

Prof. A. Palmer OPT Conference 25-26 Feb. 1999 Amsterdam

MANAGING RISK

Reception from the industry

Upstream, 18 February 2000: (ExxonMobil Natuna Project, Indonesia)

DNV Offshore Codes

Adoption of the 1996 DNV Rules for submarine pipeline systems, resulting in a safer and lower-cost pipeline design.

MANAGING RISK

DNV Offshore Codes

Reception from the industry

Norwegian Deep-water Program (NDP)
Andrew Palmer and Associates, UK, evaluated different codes in order to recommend one particularly suited for deep water applications They recommended DNV-OS-F101

BP (Houston / GoM)
Intec (Houston) evaluated different codes with the objective to recommend one for the deepwater field MardiGras They recommended DNV-OS-F101
MANAGING RISK

Further development
Plans for an update of OS-F101 High strength steel (X80+) New Recommended Practises are being developed as required (e.g. HT/HP pipelines and pipelines undergoing plastic deformation during installation and operation)) Large effort on the in-service phase, Pipeline Integrity Management (PIM) New EU directive on safety hazards, DNV leads consortium on PIM guidelines
MANAGING RISK

Summary and conclusions

DNV pipeline codes have been developed based on an extensive industry collaboration and international Joint Industry Projects (Norwegian participants has played a key role) These codes represents cutting edge within pipeline technology They are in line with current ISO standards They are in use world wide Feedback from the users are being used to update and improve

MANAGING RISK