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

1900

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
e
Pip
V
0
tem
:
e lin
ISO Rul 3
s1
e
e
s
976
DN 136 fo
s
y
ste
V O 23 r Su
ms
ffsh
bm
198
a r in
ore
1
eP
Sta
ipe
nda
line
rd F
sys
-10
tem
1
s1
996

DN

The first limit state

based Pipeline design
code with calibrated
safety factors!
AS
M
B31 E B3
1.4
.8
&

AS
ME

B31

192
6

Design code development

Allowable1950
stress design

Limit
state d.
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

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

Global buckling
Snaking
Upheaval buckling

On bottom stability
Trawling interference

Fatigue due to
Pressure variations
Temperature
Vortex shedding

Fracture
Fracture propagation
(Content dependent)
ECA

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

Pre-phase Phase 1M Phase 2M

Phase 3M

Pilot
studies

Synthesis
Finalization
Guidelines

US$ 100 k

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

US$ 400 k

MANAGING RISK

Database; Model uncertainty

SUPERB

Property

Data points

Burst

76 (22
SUPERB)
3500 (39)

Collapse S=0,
Seamless, UOE

Collapse+axial

15-20

Collapse+moment

148

Moment

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

Projects Validity

(6-7)

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

MANAGING RISK

Database; Material (Welded only)

SUPERB

Property Data points Projects Validity

Yield

>1000

Ultimate >1000
Y/T

>100

CTOD

291

>20

X60-X80

17

X60-X80

>5

X60-X80
100
MANAGING RISK

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

ss
Cla

A B C
Tech
nol

Structures

s
iser

Mate
rials

&R

ity

es
elin
Pi p

ties

Qu
al

l Facili
Specia

Recommended
Practices
DNV-RP

D E

Systems

&S
afe
ty

ogy

Offshore Standard
DNV-OS

Cert.

Offshore Service
Specification
DNV-OSS

Shelf Compl.

DNV Offshore Codes

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
Existing

(British Gas)
Mechanical
Pipeline Couplings

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

Protection
(Statoil)

Gudesp
(DHI)

Reeling JIP
(Sintef & TWI)

Hotpipe
(Statoil, Shell
Snamprogetti)

Design of
Titanium Risers

Multispan
(DHI, Snamprogetti)
MANAGING RISK

Blue Stream
DNV Offshore
Codes
DNV-OS-F101
-system (BP)
Tangguh
MardiField
GrasDevelopment
Pipeline
transportation
Gazprom/ENI
The
World
Zakum
Gas Injection
Project
SeveralArco
fields
including Crazy
Horse (6300ft)

Two
610
mmIrian
diameter for
pipelines
Situated in Adma-Opco
the MMS
"Birdsapproved
Head"
area
of
West
use
of
DNV-OS-F101
this
Nam Confrom
Son Russia to Turkey across
Two
highThe
pressure
injection
Jaya,.
Upstream
platform
facilities
are
Westgas
Natuna
Pipeline
Project
project
BP
Amoco
the Black
Sea. Maximum water
pipelines
for the25km
Zakum
field.
This
approximately
km
apart
with
conventional
Conoco
A 360 km, 32 submarine
pipeline
depth
is
2150 meters. Length is
was
the first
project
that28
applied
platforms
and
gas
being
exported
by
submarine
A
600
km,
submarine
pipeline
from the offshore field
complex
to
2
x
400
km
the DNV96
in the
Middle
pipelines,
20km
tothe
30km
in East.
length,
to
the Onshore
from
the
offshore
field
complex
in
onshore
gas
terminal.
Receiving Facility
(ORF).waters
The gas
hasonshore
a relatively
Indonesian
to the
high CO2 and H2S
content
andinincludes
free water.
gas
terminal
Singapore.

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

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 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