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

IPC2012-90684

A Rational Methodology for Detailed Pipeline Transient Hydraulic Analysis

Gabriela Rodriguez, P.Eng. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB, Canada Bogdan Pavel, P.Eng. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB, Canada

ABSTRACT Pressure waves in pipelines develop any time there is a change in fluid velocity. If the change in velocity is large enough, the magnitude of a travelling pressure wave can exceed the Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) of the piping. It is a violation of the Canadian and US regulations for petroleum pipelines (Canada CSA Z662 4.18 and United States ASME B31.4) to operate a pipeline at pressures in excess of 110% MOP even for short periods of time. In order to meet standards and regulations, transient analyses are undertaken to verify whether the pipeline MOP profile is susceptible to overpressures and to recommend solutions for such cases. This paper presents the results of a working group on developing a standard for the suite of transient scenarios and methodology to be used for detailed transient hydraulic analysis. The work consisted of reviewing and analyzing historical transient studies and, abnormal operating conditions / overpressure events recorded by Control Centre; as well as, incorporating new learning from operational lines. Methodology standardization focused on four areas: selection of inputs, model scope and criticality of pipeline sections, pipeline initial state, and worst-case upset scenarios. As a result, this paper describes the most prudent approach for each area or step of a pipeline transient analysis; including the evaluation of mitigation options if required. Finally, the use of this methodology is illustrated on a crude oil pipeline. INTRODUCTION The term transient refers to any unsteady flow condition where changes in velocity, and consequently pressure, occur rapidly. The larger the incremental change and the faster that change takes place, the greater the transient pressure. All

pipelines experience transients, Tullis 1989. Numerous events can cause a transient; some of the most common are: sudden closure of a pressure control valve, sudden stopping of units due to power failure, failure of check valves and pressure relief valves. Whether the transient creates operational problems depends on its magnitude and the ability of the pipe to tolerate high pressure without damage, Tullis 1989. Regulatory requirements for petroleum pipelines specify that a pipeline may not be operated more than 10% above the established maximum operating pressure. That is an upper limit not to be exceeded under any circumstance, even briefly during surge events. Therefore, transient analysis is essential to determine if the pipeline MOP profile is susceptible to overpressures and, to recommend solutions for such cases. This paper refers to transient analysis for liquid pipelines only, so the term hydraulic is used. Then, a transient hydraulic analysis is required for: 1. The design of a new pipeline. In general, steady-state hydraulics have been used almost exclusively in the facility selection process. This process involves determining capacity, pipeline size, and overall pump station power requirements. However, steady-state analysis is limited in modeling of pressure surge phenomena. Unlike steady-state, transient modeling allows simulating abnormal operating situations and provides a realistic system response under those conditions, Mohitpour, et al 2007. For the case of existing pipelines, whenever changes are made from the original design conditions that may increase

2.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

the risk of pressure transients. These changes could include, but are not limited to, changes in: a) Flow rate; b) Piping (diameter, lengths, grade, wall thickness); c) MOP; d) Fluid properties; e) Line service, direction of flow; f) Pumps (replacements, modifications, additions); g) Valves (new valves, valve characteristics and closing times); h) Control parameters or philosophy; Many surge analyses and design rules have evolved over time to help pipeline companies cope with the complexity of transient phenomena. The increase in Greenfield pipeline expansion projects over the last couple of years has affected how pipeline companies address transient analysis. As more studies have been requested and conducted, questions have been raised as to whether the suite of transient scenarios have accurately reflected the potential circumstances giving rise to pressure transients, or whether further refinement is required. This was the impetus for creating a standard for the suite of transient scenarios and the methodology to be used for transient hydraulic analysis. Because of the complexity of the process, dynamic simulators are the best prospect for producing accurate surge analyses, Modisette, et al 2007. The following methodology was developed for performing detailed pipeline transient analysis using Stoner Pipeline Simulator (SPS). TRANSIENT MODELLING This section provides the minimum requirements for performing detailed pipeline transient hydraulic analysis during a project engineering design phase or an operations related study. A detailed transient analysis applies to pipelines where protective logic actions are currently implemented; or, will be required. For automated pipeline protection, Enbridge uses a SCADA product called PROCYS. PROCYS has a graphical user interface that allows the pipeline controller to remotely monitor and control critical aspects of Enbridges pipeline systems. Data transmitted from selected pump stations and terminals by the SCADA system include pressures, set points, pump and valve status, tank levels and various station alarms. This information is displayed for the pipeline controllers and monitored by PROCYS for alarms and other unusual conditions. PROCYS provides automatic backup pressure protection through a number of subroutines. For example, the line pressure monitor (LPM) alarm system monitors the discharge

pressure at one station and the suction pressure at the downstream station. The LPM can initiate set-point reductions, unit shutdowns at the upstream station, or entire line shutdowns if a section of the pipeline appears to be approaching an overpressure situation. Model Scope In order to eliminate the risk of excluding locations where overpressure events could theoretically occur, all pipeline sections shall be analyzed. However, the order of priority can be determined based on the criticality of each pipeline section. Critical locations are those ranked with a higher risk of overpressure based on: Their pressure profile (i.e. telescopic MOP profile and/or section with flow test) Elevation profile (i.e. downhill, river crossings). Their engineering design (i.e. no alternative flow path through the station and/or no mainline relief at delivery locations). Challenges and historical overpressure incidents. The minimum number of pipe sections to be incorporated into a transient model is determined on a case-by-case basis, as follows: For an upset that occurs at an intermediate pump station, the model shall start at the suction of the upstream station and end at the suction of the downstream station. Nevertheless, if the pipe section to the intermediate station has a large change in MOP (i.e. telescopic MOP or section with flow test), at least two upstream and one downstream stations shall be included in the model. Thus, an upset at each one of them shall also be simulated to determine its impact on the upstream pipe. For an upset that occurs at a delivery location, model shall start at the suction of the upstream station and end at the delivery tank. Model Data Requirements This section summarizes minimum model data requirements as well as physical components to include when building a model. Pipeline Information: Outside diameter Length Wall thickness Pipe roughness Elevation Profile MOP profile Thermal Data: Transient Thermal Mode (TRANSTHERMAL) should be used for liquid systems where there is a strong temperature

Copyright 2012 by ASME

dependency on viscosity, such as a batched pipeline that transports heavy crudes. For TRANSTHERMAL simulations in SPS, one line of data is required for each of the radiallysymmetric concentric layers surrounding the fluid: the pipewall, each pipe wrapping material, the fill material, and the ground material. For each layer, density, heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and thickness are required. In transient thermal mode, temperatures are calculated by SPS; only the inlet temperature is required to be entered. Pump Station Configuration: Station configuration shall be verified against the most up-todate station flow diagrams. Minor losses (such as bends, tees, elbows and station piping) can all be considered negligible; or, if there is a large number of them they can all be combined as a single pressure loss element (header or valve) on the suction or discharge side of the station. Valve Data: Pressure control valves (PCVs), check valves, pressure relief valves (PSVs) and motor operated block valves should be included in the model. Valve size Opening / closing curves Opening / closing times PCV maximum percentage closure PCV controller tuning parameters Valve coefficient when fully opened (CVo) PSV closing pressure set point for (PC) PSV opening pressure set point for (PO) Pump Data: Pump performance curves (head and efficiency curves) Pump speed, differential head, flow rate and brake horsepower based on water at best efficiency point BEP. These parameters can all be found on the pump performance curves. Rated pump speed Rated driver power Effective moment of inertia Average starting torque as a percentage of running torque. Fluid Properties: Only two fluids, the heaviest & most viscous and the lightest & least viscous, shall be chosen among all fluids that can be shipped within each pipeline section. These fluids should be used to fill each section of the line and obtain the worst initial conditions required for transient analysis. Selection of these two fluids should be made by comparison of density and viscosity. The following fluid properties and coefficients are required for a detailed transient analysis in SPS: Density at standard conditions (standard conditions for crude are: Po = 14.7 Psia and To = 15C) Kinematic viscosity at two temperatures

Bulk modulus at Po and To (PMo) Temperature modulus at Po and To (TMo) Multiplier for the delta P delta T term (PTMULT) Multiplier for the delta P squared term (PPMULT) Multiplier for the delta T squared term (TTMULT) Constant A for ASTM formula of viscosity Constant B for ASTM formula of viscosity Heat capacity at constant density (CVo) Temperature coefficient of heat capacity (CVT) Heat conductivity at To (Ko) Temperature coefficient of heat conductivity (KT)

Coefficients A and B should be derived from the ASTM equation of viscosity. PMo, TMo, PTMULT, PPMULT and TTMULT can be calculated using the SCL equation of state and standards that provide procedures for oil density estimations at various conditions (i.e Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standard by API). Flow Rate: Pipeline maximum flow rate shall be determined under the following conditions: fluids as used for steady state analysis, all in-service equipment and, operating pressures below MOP and not exceeding maximum pump station pressure set points. Operational Data: Normal startup and shutdown procedures Emergency operational procedures Constraints on pipeline and equipment operations Description of pump station discharge control valves, including types of set points (suction pressure set point, discharge pressure set point) Pump station control methods (high suction pressure shutdown, low suction pressure cascade shutdown, high case pressure cascade shutdown and other protective logic actions). TRANSIENT SIMULATION All transient simulations start from an initial pipeline system condition that shall be stable. Then, the upset scenario is launched and the pipeline system response is monitored. Initial States The worst initial states for each pipeline section shall be set up by filling the section with one of the two products described in section Fluid Properties, and adjusting the upstream and downstream pressures to both a) and b) below, or to c) only. a) Pmax: In general, such an initial state has the upstream station discharging at the maximum discharge pressure

Copyright 2012 by ASME

limit (MDPL) AND the downstream station suction pressure slightly lower (12 psi) than the maximum suction pressure limit (MSPL). b) Qmax: In general, such an initial state has a flow rate equal to the maximum flow rate AND either the upstream station discharging at MDPL (Qmax with MDPL) or the downstream station suction pressure slightly lower (12 psi) than MSPL (Qmax with MSPL). c) PQmax: There are situations when both Pmax and Qmax initial states can be attained at the same time within a critical section. Such an initial state has the upstream station discharging at MDPL AND the downstream station suction pressure slightly lower (12 psi) than MSPL AND the flow rate equals to the maximum flow rate. In general, the PQmax state can be attained within pipeline sections that have DRA injected at the discharge side of the upstream pump station. It is important to note that a Pmax intial state is not required for pipeline sections wherein either PQmax or Qmax with MSPL initial states can be attained. Therefore, for each pipeline section a minimum of two and a maximum of four initial states could be set up as shown in Fig. 1.

Analyzed abnormal operating conditions and overpressure events by reference to Control Centre records; Canvassed and incorporated new learnings from operational lines.

The results of the foregoing analysis confirmed that PCV action is a legitimate potential cause of overpressures in a pipeline system. This review also identified that pump trip at the initiating pump station causes the greatest magnitude of MOP violations between booster pumps and mainline pumps. Although terminal transient analysis is outside the scope of this paper, the latter stresses the importance of transient analysis not only for mainline but also within the terminal environment. Therefore, the following have been determined to be the worst case upset scenarios for pipeline transient analysis: Station PCV closure with COMM-OUT It is considered to be the upset scenario that causes the largest surge pressures. During this event, the COMMOUT station which is also the station where the PCV closes does not communicate with the SCADA system; therefore, protective logic actions do not take effect on the upstream section. This type of upset causes either a complete or partial flow stoppage depending on the station PCV maximum percentage closure as well as on the presence of a station by-pass check valve. The flow obstruction generates a pressure wave that propagates upstream at the speed of sound in the fluid. The magnitude of the pressure wave depends on multiple factors such as: the momentum of the column of fluid upstream of the blockage, pipeline elevation profile, type of fluid, pipeline material, operating pressure profile at the time of upset initiation, type of obstruction (partial or complete), as well as the speed at which the flow obstruction occurs. Delivery PCV closure with COMM-IN During this event, all sites are communicating with the SCADA system. Redundant communications are assumed to exist at delivery locations; therefore, delivery PCV closure with COMM-IN is considered to be the worst case scenario during deliveries.

Initial State Pmax Qmax

Linefill The heaviest & most viscous The lightest & least viscous The heaviest & most viscous The lightest & least viscous OR Linefill The heaviest & most viscous

Initial State

PQmax The lightest & least viscous Figure 1. System Initial Conditions

Simulation Scenarios In order to determine a standard suite of transient scenarios to be run consistently for pipeline transient hydraulic analysis, the following work was undertaken: Gathered historical pressure transient analyses; Reviewed and performed trend analysis on the results of all project studies to determine if any causal factors could be identified (or alternatively discarded);

Depending on the specifics of a pipeline, other upset scenarios might need to be considered. For instance, Station Lock-out with COMM-OUT could be the worst case on a pipeline where the mainline piping into the suction of a pump station has a lower MOP than the discharge piping. During this scenario, all pump units at the COMM-OUT station trip at the same time which mimics a power failure.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Mitigation Mitigation is the last step in pipeline transient analysis. After completing all simulations for a pipeline section, the worst case, i.e., the one that results in the highest surge pressure above 110% MOP should be identified. Then, mitigation options shall be evaluated on the worst case. The following mitigation options are classified as short or / and long-term based on: a) their impact on operations, and b) whether or not the operating conditions considered for the analysis will be implemented temporarily or long-term. Short-term mitigation: Adjusting operating limits, i.e., maximum discharge pressure limit at the upstream station and / or maximum suction pressure limit at the station where the upset scenario occurs. Impact of new limits on pipeline capacity shall be investigated by steady state analysis. Adjusting the maximum percentage closure of the PCV: possibility to operate with reduced percentage closure shall be investigated. For existing relief systems, the relief set point can be dropped so that surge pressure does not exceed 110% MOP. Changing operating procedures. Long-term mitigation: Addition of mechanical pressure relief (i.e. relief system that includes PSVs or surge suppressors and relief tank) if not included in original design. Addition of an alternative flow path at the station if not included in original design. For existing relief systems, adjusting the relief set point so that surge pressure does not exceed 110% MOP. Increasing the MOP of the line. Mitigation options should be reviewed, in consultation with Control Centre Engineers, to assess their potential impact on the operability of the pipeline. CASE STUDY Application of the aforementioned methodology is illustrated on a 1099 miles NPS 34 pipeline in light crude service. The objective of the study was to verify whether the pipeline was susceptible to surge pressures larger than 110% MOP and to recommend solutions for such cases. The pipeline has a total of 26 pump stations; thus, the SPS model was broken down into 26 small models for analysis of each pipeline section. Each model included at least 1 pipe section upstream and 1 pipe section downstream of the station where the upset occurred. For simplicity, analysis of only 1 pipeline section (XA to XB) will be illustrated on this paper. This section consists of 53.8 miles of (API X52, 516 Psi MOP) pipe. As shown in Fig. 2, there is a significant drop in elevation of about 782 ft between stations XA and XB; hence, XB is considered a hydraulically critical location on the pipeline.

Figure 2. MOP and elevation profile. All pump stations are PCV controlled; there is no VFD at the stations. XA has 3 pump units driven by 3500 HP motors. XB has 4 pump units driven by 2500 HP motors. All units are centrifugal pumps and arranged in series. It is important to note that XB has an alternative flow path with an isolation block valve upstream of it. In addition, a mainline relief system; consisting of a PSV, piping and a relief tank, is located on the suction side of XB. All these elements were included in the model and based on station flow diagrams. Relief valve was initially set to open at 517 psi, as per current set point. Two fluids, which represent the heaviest & most viscous and the lightest & least viscous, were chosen among all fluids that can be shipped within each pipeline section. Figure 3 shows the properties of these two fluids for the section XA to XB.
Fluid Property Standard Density (1 atm; 15C) Kinematic Viscosity @ 10C Kinematic Viscosity @ 30C Reid Vapor Pressure (@37.8 C) Bulk modulus at P0 and T0 UNIT kg/m3 cSt cSt kPaa psi THE HEAVIEST & THE LIGHTEST & MOST VISCOUS FLUID LEAST VISCOUS FLUID 861.5 20.200 10.000 68.5 211110 828.9 5.840 3.430 71.3 192232

Figure 3. Fluid properties The maximum flow rate used for this analysis was 87,000 m3/day (3,625 m3/hr). This flow rate was used to obtain the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Qmax initial states: Qmax with MDPL and the heaviest crude and, Qmax with MSPL and the lightest crude. Because the latter was attained with the lightest crude, then Pmax was required only with the heaviest crude. These initial states are illustrated on Figs. 4, 5, and 6.

1. 2. 3.

An initial state condition was loaded at simulation time 00:00:00 (hh:mm:ss). The upset scenario was launched at this moment 00:00:00 using a maximum simulation time step of 1 sec. The pipeline system response to the transient scenario was monitored for up to 15 minutes or more following the upset. Details about protective logic actions were recorded.

Figure 4. Hydraulic Gradient at Qmax with MDPL and the heaviest crude (Max. Flow rate = 3,625 m3/hr, Discharge pressure at XA=436 psi)

Figure 6. Hydraulic Gradient at Qmax with MSPL and the lightest crude (Flow rate = 3,625 m3/hr, Suction Pressure at XB=357 psi) 4. A distance plot including items described below was printed at the end of each simulation: a) The MOP and MSP profiles; b) The minimum and maximum pressure profiles. They actually indicated the minimum and maximum pressures recorded between the beginning and the end of the simulation at each milepost along the pipeline section; c) The current pressure profile and the standard flow rate several minutes into the simulation when the plot was generated. The pipeline maximum pressure profile was inspected to verify whether or not pipeline surge pressures violated the MOP or MSP profiles. The point where the worst MOP violation occurred was recorded.

5.

Figure 5. Hydraulic Gradient at Pmax with the heaviest crude (Flow rate = 3,531 m3/hr, Discharge pressure at XA=436 psi, Suction Pressure at XB=357 psi) PCV closure at XB with COMM-OUT was simulated for each one of the 3 initial states; as follows:

Figure 7 shows a summary of results obtained for each case. The isolation block valve was kept closed in all cases; therefore, XB station alternative flow path was not available. The worst case scenario, i.e. the case that resulted in higher surge pressures is Case 1 (XB-PCV closure with COMM-OUT for Qmax with the heaviest crude).

Copyright 2012 by ASME

BEFORE UPSET XA CASE DESCRIPTION Q PSUC PDSC MDPL PSUC XB MSPL PDSC MDPL

AFTER UPSET max. pressure. in P/L Local % Local P MOP MOP viol. [%]

[m3/hr] [psig] [psig] [psig] XB-PCV closure to 95% with COMM-OUT (Qmax with MDPL) Specifications: - Pump units ON: XA(1/2), XB(1/2); 3,625 - SO fills the XA-XB section; - station by-pass check valve is not available (isolation valve is closed). XB-PCV closure to 95% with COMM-OUT (Pmax ) Specifications: 3,531 - Pump units ON: XA(1/2), XB(1/2); - SO fills the XA-XB section; - station by-pass check valve is not available (isolation valve is closed). XB-PCV closure to 95% with COMM-OUT (Qmax with MSPL) Specifications: 3,625 - Pump units ON: XA(1/2), XB(1/2); - SW fills the XA-XB section; - station by-pass check valve is not available (isolation valve is closed).

[psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig]

115

436

436

339

357

615

615

588

516

114.0%

115

436

436

357

357

614

615

585

516

113.4%

50

378

436

357

357

562

615

561

516

108.7%

Figure 7. Summary of results During this scenario, station PCV at XB is initially (00:00:00) 67.1% opened. Two (2) seconds after (00:00:02) the upset scenario was launched, 1 pump unit at XB trip on cascade shutdown due to high case pressure. At 00:00:03, relief valve at XB opened at 517 psi. Then XB-PCV closed to 95%. Simulation was stopped after 15 min. As shown in Fig 8, the maximum pressure recorded at about 28.8 miles downstream of XA exceeded MOP by 14%.

Figure 9. Pressure Profile recorded during simulation of Case 1 with relief valve set to open at 485 Psi.

Figure 10. Pressure Profile recorded during simulation of Case 1 with XB alternative flow path available (isolation valve was kept opened). Figure 8. Pressure Profile recorded during the simulation of Case 1. Mitigation of this overpressure event would require either keeping the isolation valve open so that XB alternative flow path is available; or, dropping the relief set point from 517 psi to 485 psi. Both options were evaluated on the worst case (Case 1) to ensure that surge pressure did not exceed 110% MOP. Results are illustrated on Figs. 9 and 10.

CONCLUSIONS Methodology presented on this paper provides guidelines on how to conduct detailed transient analyses for liquid pipelines. The following is the recommended standard for the suite of transients to be run for pipelines: All injection locations, delivery locations, and pump stations along a particular line or system are to be studied. However, this methodology only applies to mainline

Copyright 2012 by ASME

transient analysis. Terminal transient analysis should be performed separately at injection locations. Station PCV closure with COMM-OUT and delivery PCV closure with COMM-IN are considered to be the worst case upset scenarios. However, depending on the specifics of a pipeline, other upset scenarios (i.e. Station Lock-out with COMM-OUT) might need to be considered. All studies are to be performed under the following initial conditions: Qmax, Pmax, and PQmax only where conditions allow to do so. Mitigation options should be reviewed, in consultation with Control Centre Engineers, to assess their potential impact on the operability of the pipeline.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to thank management of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. for their permission to publish this paper. Portions of this paper include excerpts from technical standards owned by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. These excerpts have been used with the permission of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. REFERENCES Modisette, Jerry L. and Bachman, Susan, 2007, Surge Analysis Coping with Fuzzy Regulations, PSIG Annual Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Oct 24-26. Mohitpour, M., Golshan, H. & Murray, A., 2007, Pipeline Design & Construction A Practical Approach, 3rd Edition, ASME Press, New York. Tullis J. Paul, 1989, Hydraulics of Pipelines Pumps, Valves, Cavitation, Transients, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Copyright 2012 by ASME