Experiences with new DNV pipeline

codes

Tommy Bjørnsen
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

2 MANAGING RISK
 DNV - Main Industries

Shipping Oil & Gas Process Rail Automotive

3 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
Design code development

976

996
198
s1

s1
ms
tem

tem
ste
sys

sys
s y
line

line
e lin
ipe

ipe
Pip

1
-10
eP

eP
e

rd F
a r in
a r in

a r in
The first limit state

nda
ubm
ubm

bm
based Pipeline design

V O 23 r Su

Sta
rS
rS
s fo
code with calibrated

s fo

ore
6

DN 136 fo
&
192

s
1.4

ffsh
ISO Rul 3
ule
ule

e
safety factors!

:
B31

0
B31 E B3

DN 801
VR
VR

V
ME

DN
DN
.8

BS
M
AS
AS

Limit state d.
1900 Allowable1950
stress design 2000

DNV involvement in Pipelines

SUPERB
1992-1996
MANAGING RISK
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

As installed pipeline cost

• Lowest life cycle
cost Materials
30 % Intervention
20 %

• Offshore pipelines
cost appr. US$ Engineering

1000/m / Admin
10 %

• Cost optimisation
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 • Fatigue due to

• Local buckling – Pressure variations
– Collapse – Temperature
– Combined loading – Vortex shedding
– Propagating pressure • Fracture
• Global buckling – Fracture propagation
(Content dependent)
– Snaking
– ECA
– Upheaval buckling
• On bottom stability • Ovalisation
• Trawling interference • Ratcheting

MANAGING RISK
Collapse and propagating buckling

MANAGING RISK
Design format
LRFD versus ASD

• ASD • LRFD
– Easy to use – Consistent safety
– Less checks level
– (Should) Give(s) – Flexible
same result as – Allows optimisation
LRFD for – Less dependent on
”normal design” assumptions
– Includes (implicit) – Can easier be
design rule of extended to new
thumbs 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

Pre-phase Phase 1M Phase 2M Phase 3M

• Pilot • Safety • Technology • Synthesis
studies assessment development • Finalization
• State of art • Revised Safety • Guidelines
Technology and Calibration
Procedures
• Draft Guideline
US$ 100 k US$ 500 k US$ 500 k US$ 400 k

MANAGING RISK
SUPERB-
Database; Model uncertainty
Property Data points Projects Validity
Burst 76 (22 X52-X120
SUPERB) 6<D/t<25
Collapse S=0, 3500 (39) (6-7) X65-X70
Seamless, UOE 16<D/t<45
Collapse+axial 15-20
Collapse+moment 148 X52-X70
Moment >100 X52-
Small pipes (+50 FEM)
Internal pressure+ 2 (+100 FEM)
moment
Burst (corroded) >100 (60)
(+500 FEM) MANAGING RISK
SUPERB-
Database; Material (Welded only)

Property Data points Projects Validity

Yield >1000 >20 X60-X80

Ultimate >1000 17 X60-X80

Y/T >100 >5 X60-X80

CTOD 291 100

MANAGING RISK
New DNV pipeline codes

• DNV’96 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)
• DNV’96 was updated and published as
DNV-OS-F101 in 2000
• An extensive list of additional documents
supporting the main pipeline standard
MANAGING RISK
 DNV Offshore Codes

Shelf Compl.
Offshore Service

ss
Specification

Cert.
Cla
DNV-OSS

Offshore Standard A B C D E F

ogy
DNV-OS

nol

Specia

Pi p
Tech
ty
afe

Structures

elin
&S

Systems

l Facili
rials

es
ity

&R
Mate
al

Recommended

iser
ties
Qu

Practices

s
DNV-RP

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
Under development (British Gas)
Existing
Mechanical
Pipeline Couplings

Trawling
DNV-RP-F10X
DNV-RP-F10X
Protection
Design
Designofof (Statoil)
Gudesp
HT/HP
HT/HP
Pipelines
Pipelines Reeling JIP (DHI)
(Sintef & TWI) Multispan
Hotpipe Design of (DHI, Snamprogetti)
(Statoil, Shell Titanium Risers
Snamprogetti) MANAGING RISK
 DNV Offshore
Tangguh Codes
MardiField DNV-OS-F101
GrasDevelopment
Pipeline transportation -system (BP)
Blue Stream
The World
Zakum Gas Injection Project
SeveralArco
fields Gazprom/ENI
including Crazy Horse (6300ft)
Situated in Adma-Opco
the MMS
"Bird’sapproved
Head" Two
area
use of610
of WestmmIrian
diameter for
DNV-OS-F101 pipelines
this
Nam Confrom Son Russia to Turkey across
Two highThe
Jaya,. pressure
Westgas
Upstream injection
platform
Natuna facilities
Pipeline are
Project
project
BP Amocothe Black Sea. Maximum water
pipelines for the25km
approximately Zakumkm field.
apart
ConocoThis
with conventional
A 360 km, 32” submarine depth ispipeline
2150 meters. Length is
was the first
platforms and
Aproject
gas
600 that28”
being
km, applied
exported
submarineby submarine
pipeline
from the offshore field 2 x complex
400 km to
the DNV’96
pipelines, 20kmin the
from totheMiddle
30km
the in East.
length,
offshore field to the Onshore
complex in
onshore gas terminal.
Receiving Facility (ORF).waters
Indonesian The gas hasonshore
to the a relatively
high CO2 and H2S gascontent andinincludes
terminal Singapore. free water.

MANAGING RISK
DNV Offshore Codes
Reception from the industry

“Comparing DNV’96 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
 DNV Offshore Codes
Reception from the industry

Upstream, 18 February 2000:

(ExxonMobil Natuna Project, Indonesia)

•• 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 deep-
water 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