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

IPC2012-90472

Remaining Life Assessment of ERW Flaws: A Case Study

Pablo Cazenave, Samarth Tandon, Katina Tinacos, Ming Gao Blade Energy Partners Houston, Texas, USA David C. Katz, Sergio Limon, Michael Van Hook* Williams Northwest Pipeline Salt Lake City UT, USA

ABSTRACT Recent failures in seam weld pipe have raised concerns within the pipeline industry over the integrity of such welded pipe. Low-Frequency (LF) Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) pipe manufactured prior to 1970, in particular, can be susceptible to failures caused by hook cracks, lack of fusion and other planar defects should the weld area exhibit low toughness. Integrity management regulations and Pipeline operators are evaluating potential methodologies to address and mitigate the LF-ERW seam weld threat. A program has been initiated at Williams Northwest Pipeline GP (NWPGP) to address the integrity management of its pre-70s ERW pipelines. In this case study, as part of an overall integrity management program, a hydrostatic test and fatigue analysis based methodology for addressing the LF-ERW seam weld threat is presented. The methodology was applied to 15 pre-1970s natural gas pipelines. The results and findings are summarized in terms of the integrity threat mitigation and maintenance strategies.

INTRODUCTION Low-Frequency (LF) Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) line pipe began to be produced and used as line pipe for cross country hydrocarbon pipelines since the 1920s until the 1970s. Weld anomalies associated with the LF-ERW process are known and have been well documented. The presence of these anomalies significantly increases the risk of seam failures in ERW pipes. Verifying the integrity of ERW seam pipelines often involves hydrostatic testing of the affected segments. Hydrostatic testing of the line either removes any defects that have grown beyond critical or it proves that no defects of critical size exist. After the hydrostatic test, the clock must be restarted because the defects that remain in the pipeline are all below the critical size but could grow in the future to a larger size before failing at MOP or MAOP. Pressure cycle induced fatigue is the mechanism for remaining flaws to grow in service and the factors that affect growth of seam defects are: pressure cycles, presence of initial flaws and the toughness of the pipe. Williams Northwest Pipeline GP (NWPGP) operates natural gas pipelines constructed with pre-70s ERW pipe, therefore these pipelines are considered to be susceptible to seam weld threats. As part of the ongoing integrity management program

________________________________________ * Michel Van Hook is a former Williams employee, is now with Mears Group Inc.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

for pipelines, Williams NWPGP has implemented methodology to address the LF-ERW seam weld threats.

It is assumed that the initial crack sizes are equal to the critical crack sizes of flaws that may have survived the hydrostatic test (HT) pressure. In using the API 579 Level 3 approach to calculating the critical crack size, it is required to use actual material properties. However, since actual material properties are not available for in this case, API 579 FAD Level-2 [1] which is designed for fitness-for-purpose (FFP) assessment is used. To minimize the non-conservatism of the Level-2 approach used to estimate the critical size of flaws that survive the hydrostatic test (HT) pressure, the user must choose both the upper bound material properties (specified by API 5L [2]) and the lower end of applied load. The cracks remaining in the pipe after the hydrostatic test become sub-critical cracks at MAOP. The sub-critical flaws could be subject to significant levels of pressure cycling, and consequently could cause failure as a result of pressure cycling-induced fatigue crack growth. The fatigue life analysis of the sub-critical flaws is calculated using the Paris-Erdogan fatigue crack growth equation [3], from initial crack size to limiting crack size to meet fitnessfor-service requirement. This analysis is calculated for three different operative pressure values: MAOP, the maximum allowable operating pressure, MOP1, the maximum operating pressure (MOP) recorded during the years prior to the establishment of the HCA, and MOP2, the MOP recorded in the years after the establishment of the HCA. Additionally, an alternative crack fatigue life analysis assuming the initial crack depth equal to 50% is also performed for reference proposes. DOT report [4] indicates that a credible flaw size in newly constructed pipeline could reach a maximum of 50% depth. Various crack lengths are analyzed in this report. Williams NWPGP established an assessment procedure for the ERW seam weld threat evaluation [5], in accordance with PHMSA OPS [6,7]. This procedure is implemented in this case in order to determine threat levels of each particular pipeline evaluated. The interacting threats are then evaluated using by cyclic fatigue analysis.

This document describes the methodology used by Williams NWPGP and Blade to perform the evaluation on the potential pre-1970s LF-ERW seam weld defects affecting up to 15 lateral pipeline segments of the NWPGP pipeline system. The results and findings are summarized in terms of the integrity threat mitigation and maintenance strategies. APPROACH The objective of this assessment is to identify interactive threats related to potential cyclic fatigue as well as to assess significant increments in operational pressures, which could pose a safety concern for pipelines. The execution of the assessment objective was carried-out using a sequence of steps portrayed in the following flow chart:

*For critical crack size calculation, API 579 Level 3 assessment is required. However, because of unavailability of the actual material properties, API 579 FAD Level 2 is used here, see text for details.

The assessment procedure for ERW seam weld threat can be categorized into two conditions: Pressure test records of <1.25 MAOP Pressure test records of >1.25 MAOP

Figure 1: Assessment approach To identify significant increases in operational pressures, a detailed pressure-cycle history review is required for 15 pipeline segments. The potential cyclic fatigue threats are assessed with an analysis of fatigue life on LF-ERW seam flaws.

The procedures for assessment of each condition are shown below:

Copyright 2012 by ASME

regulation valve), and one from the downstream sensor (before regulation). The selection of the two data sets (for 15 pipeline segments) was based on their highest cycling and maximum pressures. The pressure records were reviewed in detail in terms of yearly, monthly, weekly and daily intervals. Then further review on a case by case basis, to eliminate potentially spurious electronic or non-real pressure data that could result in a non-realistic pressure cycling of each pipeline. Figure 4 shows pressure-versus-time profiles after (a) and before (b) cleaning up potentially spurious signals. The electronic or non-real pressure spikes/drops that were eliminated are identified into red circles.

Figure 2: Assessment procedure for lines with hydrostatic test pressure below 1.25 MAOP

Figure 3: Assessment procedure for lines with hydrostatic test pressure equal or above 1.25 MAOP

Figure 4: Pressure data cleanup

REVIEW OF HISTORICAL PRESSURE DATA To evaluate the effects of pressure cycles on pipeline systems, pressure cycles for one or more significant periods of time are considered. Sets of pressure-versus-time relationships for relevant locations are reviewed. Points that are analyzed include locations which coincide with the high-pressure levels and the largest ranges of pressure cycles. The largest cycles can be expected to have the most detrimental effects on fatigue life. For each one of the 15 lateral pipeline segments, a detailed review of operating pressure records was performed. The historical data included one pressure record every five minutes for the last 6.3 years and different pressure data sets from several sensors along the lines. In this analysis, two pressure data sets were selected for each pipeline segment, one from the upstream sensor (after the

REPRESENTATIVE EQUIVALENT PRESSURE RANGE AND CYCLES The 6.3 year pressure record for operative pressure-versustime (upstream and downstream) was converted to pressure blocks, stress range and equivalent cycles in order to predict the fatigue life for each pipeline. The RainFlow [8] method for conversion of random loading spectra to loading blocks was used to convert the 6.3 years of provided pressure data. The Miners Rule [9] (using cumulative damage theory) was applied to convert the pressure blocks to equivalent cycles and pressure ranges. Table 1 lists the pressure ranges and equivalent cycles per year calculated with the recorded pressure data from upstream and downstream for each of the 15 pipeline segments. The pressure range is the difference between the maximum and

Copyright 2012 by ASME

minimum pressures recorded. Pipelines #5 and #6 have the highest pressure range and equivalent cycles per year.

The API RP 579 FAD (Failure Assessment Diagram) approach is based on the concept of a two failure criteria assessment diagram that describes the interaction between fracture and plastic collapse. A typical Level 2 FAD is shown in Figure 5. For an acceptable feature, its assessment point is inside the assessment curve; otherwise, the feature is unacceptable. When using the API 579 Level 3 approach to calculating critical crack size, actual material properties should be used. However, since actual material properties are not available in this case, a Level 2 FAD approach is used. The estimated upper bound material properties and the lowest hydrostatic test pressure were used to minimize the non-conservatism of this approach to determining the remaining crack size post hydrotesting. Using lower bound material properties and the maximum hydrostatic test pressure to determine remaining crack sizes would be non-conservative since the calculated crack depth would be lower and the resulting fatigue life longer than the calculated above. The upper bound fracture toughness was estimated 20% above the minimum CVN for the weld zone (20 ft-lb) as specified in API 5L -2007 (no minimum CVN for weld is specified in previous API 5L versions). The upper bound yield strength and ultimate strength were estimated 20% above the minimum specified in API 5L. For the 15 pipelines, the pressure levels and duration of the hydrostatic tests in their operative history were reviewed and used in these calculations. A typical result obtained for the pipelines in this study is shown in Figure 6. Eight critical crack sizes (#1 to #8) were selected as initial crack sizes for fatigue analysis.

Table 1: Equivalent pressure ranges and cycles per year DETERMINATION OF THE INITIAL CRACK SIZES For this assessment, it was assumed that the initial crack sizes were equal to the critical crack sizes of the flaws that may have survived the hydrostatic test pressure. A fracture-mechanics based industry standard approach, API RP 579, was used to determine the initial depths and lengths of potential ERW seam weld defects in all 15 pipeline segments.

Figure 5: Typical Failure Assessment Diagram-Level II Figure 6: Initial crack for fatigue analysis pipeline #1

Copyright 2012 by ASME

LIMITING CRACK SIZE DEFINITION The limiting crack size was defined as failing to meet the fitness-for-purpose requirement and was determined by the follow criteria: 1. If the depth of the final crack is less than 100%wt, the crack grows from its initial size to limiting crack size per API 579 Level 2 FAD (Case 1). If the through-wall crack is inside the API 579 Level II FAD, the crack grows from its initial to 100%wt (Case 2).

With this in mind, the Paris-Erdogan fatigue crack growth equation was used for fatigue life analysis with the failure criteria described in the previous step. In the calculations, all cracks deeper than 80% wt were recharacterized as equivalent through-wall cracks, per API 579 procedure and the fatigue life was calculated up to 100% wt depth. Fifteen pipeline segments were analyzed using their respective equivalent pressure ranges and cycles per year. Pressure cycling data recorded during 6.3 years for both upstream and downstream locations was used. The calculations were performed for three different operating pressure values: MAOP, the maximum operating pressure recorded during the years previous to the establishment of the HCA (MOP1) and the maximum operating pressure recorded in the years after the establishment of the HCA (MOP2). Overall, the assessment of all pipeline segments demonstrated no significant difference between MOP1, and MOP2 and their corresponding cyclic fatigue. Therefore, the threats in these lines are not considered to be interactive. Table 2 shows the fatigue life results. Out of 15 analyzed pipelines, only two showed relatively short fatigue lives (pipelines #1 and #4). These results were based on hydrostatic testing below 1.25% MAOP and 80% wt depth flaws. The calculated fatigue lives for pipelines #1 and #4 are 41 and 21 years respectively. These short fatigue life times are due to the low ratio of hydrostatic test pressure to MAOP, below 1.25% MAOP. Pipelines with combined high equivalent pressure range and cycling frequency (#5 and #6) but hydrostatic tests above 1.25% MAOP have calculated fatigue life of 183 and 66 years respectively.

2.

Figure 7: Limiting crack size criterion FATIGUE LIFE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS In general, fatigue crack growth is expected to occur more frequently in liquid pipelines, which are subjected to more frequent and significant variations in pressure than on gas pipelines. In general, gas pipelines are expected to have longer fatigue life than liquid lines because of the compressible nature of gas and the lower occurrence of pressure changes. However, the period for this study includes a long record (6.3 years) of detailed actual pressure data (every 5 minutes), which allowed a detailed analysis of the fatigue scenarios. Further, it was assumed that this pressure history occurred in all earlier years.

Table 2: Fatigue life results for the 15 pipelines

Copyright 2012 by ASME

ALTERNATIVE FATIGUE LIFE ANALYSIS ASSUMING 50% CRACK DEPTH Additional assessments were performed using suggested credible flaw sizes of a manufacturing defect as suggested in the Evaluating the stability of manufacturing and construction defects in natural gas pipelines Final Report to US DOT, Office of Pipeline Safety DOT report [4] and with the same material properties and pressure cycling data used for each of these pipelines. This report states From the physical circumstances of the pipe-seam manufacturing processes (both ERW and DSAW), it is almost impossible to have an initial defect deeper than 50% of the wall thickness that is also long enough to cause a fatigue failure within 5 years. In order to replicate the parameters used in the cited DOT study, the suggested crack depth was used for each pipeline in the study over the full range of lengths. The resulting calculated minimum fatigue life ranged between 192 and over one thousand years, see Table 2. FAILURE HISTORY If a seam-related in-service or hydrostatic test failure has occurred on the segment, the segment is considered susceptible, and if time-dependent growth is shown to be a factor in the occurrence of the failure, reassessment becomes necessary. Although a single failure does not prove the existence of other similar defects, it is reasonable to assume that defects do exist in the seam. Whether or not these hypothetical defects are susceptible to time-dependent growth is not certain. One should assume that seams which contain a population of defects that are subject to a significant number of large pressure cycles could be susceptible to fatigue failure in the future. The failure histories of the 15 lateral pipelines were reviewed and their results incorporated into the assessment procedure for ERW seam weld threat evaluation. No history of failure associated with fatigue growth was found. SUMMARY The methodology explained in this paper was used to evaluate the potential pre-1970s LF-ERW seam weld defects threat on 15 lateral pipeline segments of the NWPGP pipeline system. Assessment results showed little difference in maximum operating Pressure and cyclic fatigue between MOP2 and MOP1, respectively, therefore the threats in these 15 pipelines are not considered to be interactive with operating pressure history. Pipelines with a low ratio of hydrostatic test pressure to MAOP (below 1.25%MAOP) have shorter fatigue life than those lines hydrotested at 1.25% MAOP or above.

It was found when 50% wt depth, with various length crack sizes, fatigue life was less conservative than calculated using the critical crack sizes determined by the Level 2 FAD approach, using the minimum hydrostatic test pressure and the estimated upper bound material properties. The assessment procedure used by Williams NWPGP for the evaluation of ERW seam weld threats determined that the manufacturing threats were: Stable/medium priority for 6 lines with hydrostatic test < 1.25MAOP Stable/low priority for 9 lines with hydrostatic test 1.25MAOP

These conclusions were based on no history of seam weld related leaks and no evidence of interactive fatigue threats due to pressure cycling. REFERENCES 1. American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 5791/ASTM FFS-1, Fitness-for-Service, Second Edition June, 5, 2007. ANSI/API Specification 5L, Forty four Edition, October 1, 2007. The Paris-Law Fatigue crack growth theory. University of Plymouth. Retrieved 21 June 2010. J. F. Kiefner. Evaluating the stability of manufacturing and construction defects in natural gas pipelines Final Report No. 05-12 to US DOT, Office of Pipeline Safety. April 26th, 2007. Williams Gas Pipeline West - Addressing the seam weld threat, Sergio Limon-Tapia. Managing Line Seam Weld Challenges PHMSA Workshop, July 20 2011, Washington, DC. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Gas Integrity Management Inspection Manual, Inspection Protocols with Supplemental Guidance, January 1, 2008. Department of Transportation (DOT), Final Report No. 05-12, Evaluating the Stability of Manufacturing and Construction Defects in Natural Gas Pipelines, M-Chart 3, John F. Kiefner, April 26, 2007 American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E1049 - 85(2011) First Edition, Standard Practices for Cycle Counting in Fatigue Analysis. M. A. Miner, Cumulative Damage in Fatigue, J. Appl. Mech. Vol. 12, Trans. ASME, Vol.67, 1945, pp. A159A164.

2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Copyright 2012 by ASME