WELCOME

PIPELINE DESIGN
UNTUK TENAGA AHLI INSPEKTUR PIPA PENYALUR

BY

MARGO PAMUJI
 PRESENTATION AGENDA

PIPELINE OVERVIEW
DESIGN CODE
PIPELINE ROUTE SELECTION
MATERIAL
WALL THICKNESS
STABILITY
PIPELINE EXPANSION
FREE SPAN
CATHODIC PROTECTION
MECHANICAL PROTECTION
 PIPELINE OVERVIEW

FLOWLINE: A pipe that transfer fluid from oil or gas well to a processing
facility

PIPELINE: A pipe that transfer gas, crude oil, gasoline or other finished
product from a processing facility or storage facility to another processing
facility, refinery, chemical plant or end user
 PIPELINE OVERVIEW

Pipeline

Pipeline

Pipeline
Pipeline

Pipeline
Flowline
PIPELINE OVERVIEW
PIPELINE OVERVIEW
PIPELINE OVERVIEW
 DESIGN CODE
Common Referenced Code for Offshore Pipeline Design:
 DNV 1981- Rules for Submarine Pipelines
 DNV OS F101 – Submarine Pipeline Systems
 DNV RP F109 - On-bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines
 DNV RP F105 - Pipeline Free Spanning
 DNV RP B401 - Recommended Practice for Cathodic Protection Design
 DNV RP F103 - Recommended Practice for Cathodic Protection of Submarine
Pipeline
 ASME 31.4 – Pipeline Transportation System for Liquids and Slurries
 ASME 31.8 - Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping System
 API RP 1111- Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Offshore
Hydrocarbon Pipelines
 PIPELINE ROUTE SELECTION

Route Selection Criteria:

 Platform Approach Configuration
 Shortest Possible from Start Point to End Point
 Provision for Expansion Spool if Required
 Minimizing Number of Free Span Requiring Intervention
 Minimizing Obstruction
 Consideration of Existing Pipeline or Cables
PLATFORM APPROCH CONFIGURATION
 ROUTE SELECTION
West Side North Side East Side South Side
Pipeline Crossings with Installation Pipeline Crossings with Installation Access Pipeline Crossings with Installation Pipeline Crossings with Installation
Length Existing Access Length Existing Length Existing Access Length Existing Access
KG ARANG 1 - KG Platform
Pipeline 489 m 2 Flowline, 3 Difficult due to 362 m 1 Flowline, 1 Difficult due to 369 m 1 Flowline, 1 Less constraint
Umbilical Flare Boom No available area for riser & I-tube Umbilical Boat Landing Umbilical access
Umbilical 489 m 2 Flowline, 3 Difficult due to (Use by Pipeline from KG Arang-2 to KG Platform) 362 m 1 Flowline, 1 Difficult due to 369 m 1 Flowline, 1 Less constraint
Umbilical Flare Boom Umbilical Boat Landing Umbilical access
KG ARANG 2 - KG Platform
Pipeline 1259 m 1 Flowline, 3 Difficult due to 1359 m 4 Flowline, 2 Possible, with note for 1259 m 2 Flowline, 1 Less constraint
Umbilical Flare Boom Umbilical existing pipeline Umbilical access
No available area for riser & I-tube
crossing from KG PLEM
(Use by Pipelline from KGA Arng-1 to KG
Umbilical 1259 m 1 Flowline, 3 Difficult due to 1359 m 4 Flowline, 2 Possible, with note for 1259 m 2 Flowline, 1 Less constraint
Platform)
Umbilical Flare Boom Umbilical existing pipeline Umbilical access
crossing from KG PLEM
ROUTE SELECTION
 MATERIAL
Common Material Used for Offshore Pipeline

API Material DNV OS F101 Material Yield Strength (ksi/MPa)

API DNV
API 5L X52 DNV 360 52/359 360
API 5L X60 DNV 415 60/414 415
API 5L X65 DNV 450 65/448 450
API 5L X70 DNV 485 70/483 485
API 5L X80 80/582
 WALL THICKNESS

Common Design Code:

 ASME B31.4
 ASME B31.8
 API RP 1111
 DNV 81
 DNV OS F101

Considered Parameter:
 Internal Pressure Containment
 Water Depth
 Environmental (Wave Height)
 Temperature
 WALL THICKNESS
Calculation Aspect:

Design Aspect ASME B31.8 API RP 1111 DNV 1981 DNV OS F101
Pressure Containment 2 St Pt  f d f t f e Pb D pb t
P   FET  y   pi  pe   pli  pe 
D
P d  0 . 80 Pt 2t  SC m

Hydrostatic Collapse Follow API RP

1111
PO  Pi  f o Pc -  pc  pe1pc2  pp2  pc pe1pp fo D
t
Local Buckling - - x  
x
N
x
M
-
2 2.5
Propagation Buckling Follow API  t   t 
Po  Pi  f p Pp p pr  1.15   p pr  35S fab  
RP1111  D t  D
 WALL THICKNESS
Comparison Code Result:
OD = 914.4 mm; P = 15 MPa; X65; WD = 50 – 100m;
Content density = 200 kg/m3 ; Wave Height = 3.8 m

Design Parameter ASME B31.8 API RP 1111 DNV 1981 DNV OS F101

Internal Pressure 20.6 mm 20.46 mm 21.93 mm 19.90 mm

Containment

External Pressure Per API 1111 13.61 mm - 14.25 mm

Collapse (13.61 mm)

Local Buckling - - 22.0 mm -

Buckle Propagation Per API 1111 21.35 mm 23.42 mm 21.15 mm

(21.35 mm)
 WALL THICKNESS

• FROM THE COMPARISON TABLE, IT CAN BE SEEN

THAT, EACH ASPECT FOR EACH CHECK, MAY
RESULT IN DIFFERENT VALUE FOR THE WALL
THICKNESS.
• THE HIGHEST VALUE GOTTEN FOR ONE
PARTICULAR CHECK IS TAKEN (IN BOLD).
• FROM THIS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE CODE IS DNV 1981.
• THE LEAST CONSERVATIVE IS DNV OS F101.
 PIPELINE STABILITY

FL

Pipe
FD + F I

Seabed Fr = μ (Ws - FL)

WS

Hydrodynamic Forces:
 Pipe Submerged Weight, Ws
 Lift Force, FI
 Drag Force, FD
 Friction Resistance Force, Fr
 PIPELINE STABILITY

Common Design Code:

 DNV F109
 AGA Software

Stability Criteria:
ws  b
 Vertical Stability (empty):  1.1 b = buoyancy force
b
 Horizontal Stability:
 DNV F109: and
 AGA Software: Satisfy Level 2
 PIPELINE STABILITY
DNV F109 provides three methods of stability analysis:

DNV F109 STABILITY ANALYSIS

Method Analysis Type Description
Based on static stability analysis methodology considering
Simplified Simplified Static forces (hydrodynamic, submerged weight, friction
resistance) acting on the pipe.

Generalization of Dynamic Based on set of non-dimensional analysis considering pipe

Generalize
Analysis embedment, soil friction, and small displacement.

A full dynamic analysis of pipeline under action of wave

Dynamic Dynamic Analysis and current considering pipe embedment, soil friction,
and large displacement.
 PIPELINE STABILITY
AGA provides three levels of stability analysis:

PRCI (AGA) STABILITY SOFTWARE

Analysis Level Analysis Type Description

Based on “traditional” static stability analysis

Level 1 Simplified Static methodology considering use of frictional soil
resistance and Morison type hydrodynamic forces.

A simplified version of level 3 analysis considering

quasi-static stability. Account is taken of how small
Level 2 Simplified Quasi-Static oscillatory movements of the pipeline under wave
loading can embed the pipeline in the seabed thus
improving the lateral stability.

A full finite element time domain dynamic simulation of

Dynamic Time Domain with
a pipe section, which predicts pipeline lateral
Level 3 Wave Kinematics for 3-D
displacement and stresses resulting from the input
Random Seas
storm data
 PIPELINE STABILITY
Comparison Code Result:

OD = 1,320.8 mm; WT = 25.4; WD = 32 m; 3 mm 3LPE, Soil Undrain Shear Strength: 4.75 kPa;
Soil density = 1,600 kg/m3 ; Wave Height = 1.439 m; Peak Period: 6.44 s; Current: 0.35 m/s

Analysis Method Concrete Coating Thickness

DNV F109 Generalize 98 mm

AGA Level 2 102 mm

PIPE CONFIGURATION
 PIPELINE EXPANSION
• THE PURPOSE OF THE THERMAL EXPANSION CALCULATIONS IS TO OBTAIN THE NET
THERMAL EXPANSIONS AT BOTH ENDS OF THE PIPELINE AND VIRTUAL ANCHOR
LENGTH.
• EXPANSION IN A MARINE PIPELINE IS DUE TO:
• PRESSURE EFFECT
• TEMPERATURE EFFECT.
• SOIL FRICTION EFFECT
• RESIDUAL TENSION

• LONGITUDINAL EXPANSION IN A PIPELINE IS DEPENDENT ON THE TEMPERATURE AND

PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS, AND THE FRICTIONAL RESISTING FORCE BETWEEN THE
PIPELINE AND THE SEABED. AT SOME DISTANCE FROM THE HOT AND COLD ENDS, THE
PIPELINE IS VIRTUALLY ANCHORED WHEN THE FORCES PRODUCING THE EXPANSION
ARE BALANCED BY THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE SOIL FRICTIONAL FORCE.
 PIPELINE EXPANSION

Riser Clamp Riser Clamp

Virtual Anchor Virtual Anchor

Point Point
Pipeline

Unrestrained Restrained Section Unrestrained

Section Section


F  P (1  2 ) ( D  2t ) 2
P1 4

F  EA S   T ( x 1 )
T1
FF 1   aWs x1
 PIPELINE EXPANSION
Typical Temperature & Pressure Profile:
 FREE SPAN

Introduction:

 Design Code: DNV F105

 The pipeline span analysis is performed to determine allowable pipeline free
spans in installation, hydrotest and operation conditions.
 The allowable pipeline span is established from static load considerations and
dynamic (vortex shedding).
 Static span design criteria are based on the allowable bending stress for the
pipeline. The static span calculations take into account the pipeline weight,
design pressure, design temperature and additional forces due to current and
significant waves associated with the relevant return period. The hydrodynamic
loading is computed based on the design water depth.
 The vortex shedding calculations are based on the design currents and significant
waves associated with the relevant return period.
 FREE SPAN

When pipelines are installed, great care is taken to ensure they are as safe as
possible to other seabed users. However, due to an uneven seabed, tidal currents or
scouring, some pipelines may develop free spans. A free span on a pipeline is where
the seabed sediments have been eroded, or scoured away then the pipeline span
exceeds allowable span.

Exceeding span can cause over stress (static) or vibrate induced by current.
FREE SPAN
 FREE SPAN

Mitigation:
 Inserting sand-cement bag
 Clamp-on support with telescopic leg
 Clamp-on support with auger screw leg
 Adding rock dumping
 PIPELINE ROUTE SELECTION

Aspect to be considered:
 Minimize total route length
 Minimize required intervention
 Avoid relict object
 Avoid marine park
 Avoid hazardous object
 ANTI-CORROSION COATING
EXTERNAL

Anti-Corrosion Coating:
 Coatings isolates metal from contact with the surrounding environment
 Primary protection for external corrosion protection

Anti-Corrosion Coating Material:

 Enamel
 Fusion Bonded Epoxy
 Polyethylene
 Polypropylene
 High Performance Composite Coating
 ANTI-CORROSION COATING
EXTERNAL

Coal Tar Enamel Properties:

 used for over 100 years
 not “high-tech”
 requires primer, inner and outer wraps
 adequate adhesion, flexibility, impact performance but easily damaged
 80°C max. (115°C under concrete)
 ANTI-CORROSION COATING
EXTERNAL
Asphalt Enamel Properties:
 used for over 70 years
 requires primer, inner and outer wraps
 adequate adhesion, flexibility, impact performance
 75°C max
 ANTI-CORROSION COATING
EXTERNAL

Fusion Bonded Epoxy Properties:

 developed in the 1960’s
 requires good surface preparation
 excellent adhesion and CP compatibility
 65°C - 85°C max.
 good flexibility
 poor impact resistance and water absorption
 ANTI-CORROSION COATING
EXTERNAL

3 Layer Polyethylene (3LPE) Properties:

 extension of FBE developed in 1980’s
 excellent adhesion of FBE with enhanced mechanical performance and water resistance
 80°C max.

3 Layer Polypropylene (3LPP) Properties:

 high temperature use up to 110°C - 120°C
 superior abrasion resistance
 similar thickness to 3 layer PE coating
ANTI-CORROSION COATING
EXTERNAL
 ANTI-CORROSION COATING
INTERNAL

Anti-Corrosion (gas, water, jet fuel, sewage effluent pipelines)

 Two pack epoxies
 Internal mortar lining
 Hot applied enamel
ANTI-CORROSION COATING
INTERNAL
 CONCRETE WEIGHT COATING

Concrete Weight Propose:

 For negative buoyancy
 For mechanical protection
 Various densities used (2,240 - 3,240 kgs per cubic meter)
 CATHODIC PROTECTION

Design Code: DNV B401

Cathodic Protection: Secondary protection for external corrosion protection

Material:
 Aluminium Base
 Zinc Base
 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

• THE VARIOUS STAGES OF ANCHOR DRAGGING INCLUDING THE ANCHOR

CONFIGURATION ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY IN FIGURE 6.1.
 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

ANCHOR DRAG BEHAVIOUR (CONT’D)

Schematic Presentation of Initial Anchor Penetration and Drag

 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

DESIGN AGAINST ANCHOR RELATED DAMAGE

THE CAUSES OF ANCHOR DAMAGE MAY RESULT FROM EITHER ONE OF THE
THREE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS:

• SCENARIO 1 - ANCHOR DROP

• SCENARIO 2 - INITIAL ANCHOR DRAG

• SCENARIO 3 - CONTINUED ANCHOR DRAG

 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

SCENARIO 1 - ANCHOR DROP:

• ANCHOR IS DROPPED DIRECTLY ON TOP OF THE PIPELINE I.E. DIRECT
IMPACT.
 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

SCENARIO 2 - INITIAL ANCHOR DRAG:

• ANCHOR IS DROPPED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PIPELINE ROUTE AND

THEREAFTER DRAGGED ACROSS THE ROUTE.

• HOWEVER, DUE TO THE SHORTNESS AND TAUTNESS OF THE ANCHOR

CHAIN (2-3 "SHOTS" RELEASED IN PRACTICE), THE ANCHOR WILL BE
DRAGGED INTO THE SOIL VERY RAPIDLY AND RISE TO THE SURFACE; IT
WILL THEN BE DRAGGED FOR MOST OF THE WAY ALONG THE TOP OF
THE SEABED STRATA. THUS, THE ANCHOR WILL RIDE OVER AND ABOVE THE
PIPELINES PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE BURIED WITH SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE.
 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

PRINCIPLE OF PIPE PROTECTION AGAINST DRAGGING

ANCHOR
• PENETRATION BY THE ANCHOR CAN BE COUNTERED BY CHANGING THE
SOIL TYPE AND CONTOUR IN WHICH THE ANCHOR IS DRAGGING. THIS
CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY AN ENGINEERED BACKFILL (E.G. ROCK BERM)
TO INFLUENCE THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE DRAGGING ANCHOR.

• THE BEHAVIOUR OF AN ANCHOR APPROACHING AND/OR PENETRATING

INTO A ROCK BERM IS INFLUENCED BY FOLLOWING TWO MECHANISMS:
1. CHANGING OF ANGLE OF THE ANCHOR CHAIN RESULTING IN A VERTICAL
UPLIFT FORCE

2. INSTABILITY OF THE ANCHOR DUE TO UNEVEN LOADS ON ANCHOR FLUKES

(AFTER PENETRATION INTO THE ROCK BERM)
 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

THESE TWO MECHANISMS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED WITH TWO TYPES OF

PIPELINE PROTECTION:

1. A ROCK BERM ON A PIPELINE LYING ON THE ORIGINAL SEABED (SEE FIGURE

A) ; AND

2. A ROCK BERM ON A PIPELINE LYING IN A TRENCH, AS IS THE CASE WITH

THIS PROJECT (SEE FIGURE B).
 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

FIGURE A SHOWS THE BEHAVIOUR OF AN ANCHOR AS IT APPROACHES AND CROSSES A ROCK BERM
SITTING ON THE ORIGINAL SEABED. A SIMILAR BEHAVIOUR IS EXPECTED FOR AN ANCHOR CROSSING A
BERM IN A TRENCH.

Figure A – Pipeline On Seabed

 MECHANICAL PROTECTION

• FIGURE B SHOWS THE CHANGE IN PATH OF THE ANCHOR RESULTING FROM A ROCK BERM IN ITS
PATH. ALTHOUGH THE SKETCH SHOWS THE ROCK BERM IN A TRENCH, THE EFFECT OF THE ANCHOR
PATH DUE TO A ROCK BERM SITTING ON THE ORIGINAL SEABED IS SIMILAR.

Figure A – Pipeline In Trench

Thank You