You are on page 1of 18

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

IPC2012-90463

RUPTURES IN GAS PIPELINES, LIQUID PIPELINES AND DENSE PHASE CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINES
Andrew Cosham Atkins Newcastle upon Tyne, UK David G Jones Pipeline Integrity Engineers Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Keith Armstrong GL Noble Denton Spadeadam Test Site, UK

Daniel Allason GL Noble Denton Spadeadam Test Site, UK ABSTRACT Ruptures in gas and liquid pipelines are different. A rupture in a gas pipeline is typically long and wide. A rupture in a liquid pipeline is typically short and narrow, i.e. a slit or fish-mouth opening. The decompression of liquid (or dense) phase carbon dioxide (CO2) immediately after a rupture is characterised by a rapid decompression through the liquid phase, and then a long plateau. At the same initial conditions (pressure and temperature), the initial speed of sound in dense phase CO 2 is greater than that of natural gas and less than half that of water. Consequently, the initial decompression is more rapid than that of natural gas, but less rapid than that of water. A question then arises Does a rupture in a liquid (or dense) phase CO2 pipeline behave like a rupture in a liquid pipeline or a gas pipeline? It may exhibit behaviour somewhere in-between the two. A short defect that would rupture at the initial pressure might result in a short, narrow rupture (as in a liquid pipeline). A long defect that would rupture at the (lower) saturation pressure might result in a long, wide rupture (as in a gas pipeline). This is important, because a rupture must be long and wide if it is to have the potential to transform into a running fracture. Three full-scale fracture propagation tests (albeit shorter tests than a typical full-scale test) published in the 1980s demonstrate that it is possible to initiate a running ductile fracture in a CO2 pipeline. However, these tests were on relatively small diameter, thin-wall line pipe with a (relatively) low toughness. The results are not applicable to large diameter, thick-wall line pipe with a high toughness. Therefore, in advance of its full-scale fracture propagation test using a dense phase CO2-rich mixture and 914x25.4 mm, Grade L450 line pipe, National Grid has conducted three West Jefferson Tests. The tests were designed to investigate if it was

Julian Barnett National Grid Warwick, UK

indeed possible to create a long, wide rupture in modern, high toughness line pipe steels using a dense phase CO2-rich mixture. Two tests were conducted with 100 mol.% CO2, and one with a CO2-rich binary mixture. Two of the West Jefferson Tests resulted in short ruptures, similar to ruptures in liquid pipelines. One test resulted in a long, wide rupture, similar to a rupture in a gas pipeline. The three tests and the results are described. The reasons for the different behaviour observed in each test are explained. It is concluded that a long, wide rupture can be created in large diameter, thick-wall line pipe with a high toughness if the saturation pressure is high enough and the initial defect is long. INTRODUCTION Pipelines contain defects. Defects in pipelines occasionally fail. The failure of a defect will result in either a leak or a rupture. If the stress is low or the defect is short, then the defect will fail as a leak. If the stress is high or the defect is long, then the defect will fail as a rupture. A rupture may result in a propagating fracture. Fig. 1 summarises this sequence of events. The terms leak and rupture are used here in a structural mechanics context. The failure of a part-wall defect results in a through-wall defect. If the resulting through-wall defect is unstable, and therefore fails (i.e. the length of the through-wall defect increases), then the failure of the part-wall defect is described as a rupture. If the resulting through-wall defect is stable, then the failure of the part-wall defect is described as a leak. A rupture is caused by an unstable through-wall defect. The length at which a through-wall defect in a pipeline fails (becomes unstable) depends on the pipe geometry, the strength and toughness of the line pipe steel, and the applied load. The length decreases as the hoop stress increases. The length does not depend on the fluid in the pipeline, i.e. the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

FAILURE

LEAK

RUPTURE

Fig. 1 Leaks, ruptures and propagating fractures

PROPAGATION ARREST
a rupture in a liquid pipeline

a rupture in a gas pipeline


Fig. 2 A long and wide rupture in a gas pipeline and a short and narrow rupture in a liquid pipeline

length is the same for both a gas pipeline and a liquid pipeline. A leak-rupture boundary can be defined: part-wall defects equal to or longer than the critical length will fail as a rupture, and part-wall defects shorter than the critical length will fail as a leak. A failure criterion for a through-wall defect defines the leak-rupture boundary, as was demonstrated in full-scale burst tests on part-wall defects conducted at the Battelle Memorial Institute in the 1960s and early 1970s [1-3], and then subsequently at British Gas [4]. National Grid intends to conduct a full-scale fracture propagation test using a dense phase carbon dioxide (CO2)-rich mixture. The line pipe to be used in the test is 914 diameter, 25.4 mm wall thickness, Grade L450 line pipe. The test will be conducted at GL Noble Dentons Spadeadam Test Site in Cumbria, UK. This will be the first such test using modern, high toughness line pipe steel. A full-scale fracture propagation test is designed to demonstrate the conditions under which a running fracture will arrest. Arresting a running ductile fracture is not the same as not starting a running ductile fracture. Therefore, a running fracture must be created in the test. This requires that the rupture in the initiation pipe is long and wide. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the factors that affect

the appearance of a rupture in pipeline transporting liquid (or dense) phase CO2. Ruptures in gas and liquid pipelines are different, as is clear from historical records of pipeline failures. A rupture in a gas pipeline is typically long and wide. A rupture in a liquid pipeline is typically short and narrow, i.e. a slit or fish-mouth opening. This is illustrated in Fig. 2. Ruptures in gas and liquid pipelines have a different appearance because the decompression behaviour of a gas and a liquid are different. The leak-rupture boundary does not depend on the fluid in the pipeline. However, the appearance of a rupture does depend on the fluid in the pipeline. The appearance of a rupture is of more than descriptive interest. It is indicative of whether the rupture has the potential to transform into a propagating (running) fracture. Pipelines that transport gaseous fluids, two phase fluids, dense phase fluids, or liquids with a high vapour pressure are susceptible to propagating fractures. Pipelines that transport liquids with a low vapour pressure are not susceptible to propagating fractures. CO2 in the liquid or dense phase is a liquid with a high vapour pressure. The decompression of liquid (or dense) phase carbon dioxide immediately after a rupture is characterised by a rapid decompression through the liquid phase, and then a long plateau. Therefore, it is not immediately clear whether a rupture in a liquid or dense phase CO2 pipeline will behave like a rupture in a liquid pipeline or a gas pipeline. It may exhibit behaviour somewhere in-between the two. A short defect that would rupture at the initial pressure might result in a short, narrow rupture (as in a liquid pipeline), whilst a long defect that would rupture at the (lower) saturation pressure might result in a long, wide rupture (as in a gas pipeline). A rupture must be long and wide if it is to transform into a running ductile fracture. Three full-scale fracture propagation tests (albeit shorter tests than a typical full-scale test) are reported in the published literature (see below). However, the line pipe in the three tests is of a smaller diameter, a thinner wall, and a lower toughness than is of interest to National Grid. Therefore, based on a review of the existing experimental data and the decompression behaviour of CO2, National Grid concluded that it was necessary to conduct some West Jefferson Tests to confirm it was indeed possible to create a long, wide rupture in modern, high toughness line pipe steels using a dense phase CO2-rich mixture. National Grid has commissioned and successfully completed three West Jefferson Tests to investigate the behaviour of ruptures in a liquid (dense) phase CO 2 pipeline. The West Jefferson Tests were designed to establish how long the initial defect in the full-scale test needed to be to ensure that the resulting rupture was a long, wide rupture. The tests form part of the extensive research and development programme that National Grid is undertaking to support the development of a safety justification for the design, construction and operation of pipelines to transport CO2 in the United Kingdom [5].

Copyright 2012 by ASME

a) crude oil, Winchester, Kentucky, USA, 2000

b) crude oil, Cohasset, Minnesota, USA, 2002

c) gasoline, Greenville, Texas, USA, 2000

d) gasoline, Bellingham, Washington, USA, 1999

e) LPG, Lively, Texas, USA, 1996

f) ammonia, Kingman, Kansas, USA, 2004

Note: 1. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and ammonia are examples of high vapour pressure liquids. Fig. 3 Typical ruptures in liquid pipelines

The West Jefferson Tests were conducted on behalf of National Grid at the Spadeadam Test Site. The three West Jefferson Tests are discussed in this paper. The experimental set-up and test conditions are described. Then the results are presented. Finally, the implications of the results are discussed. Firstly, however, to place the West Jefferson Tests in context, several examples of ruptures in gas and liquid

pipelines are presented, and the prior fracture propagation tests conducted using dense phase CO2 are reviewed. NOT ALL RUPTURES ARE EQUAL Historical failures in gas and liquid pipelines illustrate the differences between ruptures in these pipelines. Fig. 3 shows photographs of ruptures in six different liquid pipelines that occurred in the USA in the 1990s and 2000s.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

a) lean natural gas, Yarm, UK, 1971

b) natural gas, Carlsbad, New Mexico, USA, 2000 Fig. 4 Typical ruptures in gas pipelines

Fig. 3a&b are examples of ruptures in crude oil pipelines [6,7]. Fig. 3c&d are examples of ruptures in gasoline pipelines [8,9]. Fig. 3e is an example of a rupture in a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline [10]. Fig. 3f is an example of a rupture in an ammonia pipeline [11]. LPG and ammonia are examples of high vapour pressure liquids. In all six examples, the rupture is short and narrow. The ruptures exhibit the fish-mouth typical of ruptures in liquid pipelines. Fig. 3c&f show some indication of ring-off and a small flap. Fig. 4 shows photographs of ruptures in two different gas pipelines. Fig. 4a is the Yarm failure that occurred in the UK in 1971. The failure occurred during commissioning. The hoop stress at the time of the failure was approximately 30% SMYS (specified minimum yield strength). The failure was caused by mechanical damage introduced during construction, but after

the precommissioning hydrostatic test 1. Fig. 4b is an example of a rupture in a high pressure natural gas pipeline that occurred near Carlsbad in the USA in 2000 [12]. In both examples, the rupture is long and wide. The rupture in the Carlsbad failure is larger because the pressure and hoop stress in the pipeline were higher at the time of the failure. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 clearly illustrate the differences between typical ruptures in liquid and gas pipelines. The comparison here is only qualitative because the specific details of each failure have not been examined. Nevertheless, the trend is clear. A rupture in a gas pipeline is larger (longer and wider) than a rupture in a liquid pipeline. A rupture in a gas pipeline will propagate further than one in a liquid pipeline. A rupture
1

Procedures were revised after the failure. A hydrotested section of a pipeline was treated as an operational pipeline. This reduced the likelihood of a similar failure occurring again.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

100F (38C) is similar to ammonia, but less than CO 2. Low frequency ERW seam welds have a history of having a low toughness and containing a relatively large number of weld defects. The long rupture might be due to the fact that propane is a high vapour pressure liquid, or it might be due to the properties of the seam weld. A combination of the two is perhaps most likely. The appearance of a rupture in a gas pipeline is different to that in a liquid pipeline because the decompression characteristics of a gas and a liquid are different. There is more stored energy2 in a pressurised gas than in a pressurised liquid because the gas is more compressible than the liquid. Deaerated water is typically used in burst tests of defects in pipelines, such as corrosion, dents and gouges, because it is safer than using an inert gas. The stored energy that would be released if the test vessel were to rupture is low. THE EFFECT OF TOUGHNESS ON THE LENGTH OF A RUPTURE The leak-rupture boundary is independent of the pressurising medium. The appearance of a rupture is dependent on the pressurising medium; a rupture in a gas pipeline will be bigger than a rupture in a liquid pipeline (see Fig. 3 to Fig. 5). The length of a rupture in a ductile material also depends on the toughness of the line pipe steel3. The results of full-scale tests conducted at the Battelle Memorial Institute illustrate the effect, as reported in Maxey (1974) and Eiber et al. (1993) [3,14,15]. Fig. 6 is a plot of the ratio of the Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact energy near the origin of the rupture to that required to arrest a running ductile fracture versus the arrest length (i.e. the half length of the rupture), after Maxey (1974) [3]. The data was taken from tests (using natural gas) for which all of the pipes exhibited ductile behaviour. The two curves represent upper and lower bounds to the data [3]. The toughness required to arrest a fracture within a short distance of the origin is higher than that required to arrest it some distance from the origin. In simple terms, the higher the toughness the shorter the rupture. One of the explanations for this behaviour is the opening effect, see below. The driving force close to the origin is therefore greater than that remote from the origin. A rupture in a gas pipeline with a toughness significantly higher than that required to arrest a running fracture will be relatively short (but long relative to a rupture in a liquid pipeline), but still of the order of say 6-12 m (20-40 ft) in length (i.e. 3-6 m in each direction). A rupture in a gas pipeline with a toughness approximately equal to the arrest toughness will be longer.
The difference in the stored energy in a liquid and a gas is illustrated by considering the energy required to increase the pressure of 1 kg of water from 0 barg (i.e. atmospheric pressure) to 1 barg compared to that for 1 kg of nitrogen. Assuming a reversible adiabatic process (i.e. isentropic) and an initial temperature of 20C, the energy required to increase the pressure of 1 kg of nitrogen to 1 barg is over five hundred times higher than that required for 1 kg of water. 3 Toughness also has an effects on the leak-rupture boundary. However, this is not relevant to this discussion.
2

a) propane, Carmichael, Mississippi, 2007 Note: 1. Propane is an example of high vapour pressure liquid. Fig. 5 An atypical rupture in a liquid pipeline

in a gas pipeline has the potential to transform into a running fracture. It is noteworthy that the two failures in pipelines transporting liquids with a high vapour pressure, Fig. 3e&f, are short and narrow. As an example of the exception to the rule, Fig. 5 is a photograph of a rupture in a propane pipeline that occurred in the USA in 2007 [13]. A rupture has initiated in the lowfrequency ERW (electric resistance weld) seam weld. The rupture ran along the length of the ERW weld. At one end it arrested at the girth weld, ringing off, and at the other it crossed through the girth weld and arrested immediately in the pipe body of the adjacent pipe. However, the pipe has not been flattened to the extent that would be observed in a gas pipeline. Propane is a high vapour pressure liquid; its vapour pressure at

Copyright 2012 by ASME

4.0

Test 01

Test 02

Test 01 Test 02 Test 03

CVN origin / CVN required

3.0

2.0

1.0
W
E

0.0 0 10 20 30 40 arrest length from origin, feet 50

Fig. 6 Arrest length as a function of the ratio of the toughness near the origin to the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture, after Maxey (1974) [3]

see Fig. 7. The initial decompression is more rapid than of natural gas, but less rapid than that of water. There is then a very long plateau in the decompression curve. Therefore, it follows from Fig. 7, that it is not immediately clear whether a rupture in a liquid or dense phase CO2 pipeline will behave like a rupture in a liquid pipeline or a gas pipeline. The appearance of the rupture might be different. The appearance of the rupture might depend upon the length of the defect. A short defect that would rupture at the initial pressure might result in a short, narrow rupture (as in a liquid pipeline), whilst a long defect that would rupture at the (lower) saturation pressure might result in a long, wide rupture (as in a gas pipeline). The effect of adding non-condensables components (such as H2, N2, O2, Ar or CH4) to CO2 is to increase the saturation pressure. This is illustrated in Fig. 7 with a binary mixture containing 12.5% N2 (the composition in Test 03, see below) 4. The plateau in the decompression curve is higher and the initial speed of sound is slightly lower than that of methane. The appearance of the rupture might be affected by the higher saturation pressure. A shorter long defect might result in a long, wide rupture. THE OPENING EFFECT A rupture creates a slit in the pipeline. As the fracture travels from the origin, the fractured area behind the crack tip becomes wedge shaped and then the full cross-sectional effective opening area develops close to, but slightly behind, the crack tip. A full cross-sectional pipe opening does not develop immediately. Therefore, the pressure decays more slowly than it would if there were an instantaneous full-bore release. This is the opening effect [14,15,18]. Isentropic decompression models are based on the centred expansion wave problem described in standard texts on thermodynamics. An instantaneous full-bore release is assumed. Therefore, the models do not describe the decompression behaviour within the first few diameters of the rupture. A fracture must typically propagate one to two pipe diameters in each direction before the cross-sectional area of the opening is equal to approximately two pipe diameters [18]. Full-scale tests conducted using natural gas show that the pressure near, but ahead of the crack tip, is higher than that predicted until the fracture has propagated about ten pipe diameters in each direction [18]. A rupture is a complex, dynamic process. The forces driving the rupture are higher than those driving a quasi steadystate running fracture. Full-scale fracture propagation tests show the fracture accelerating rapidly from the origin. The velocity of the fracture increases to a maximum and then decreases to an approximately constant value corresponding to the steady state conditions (which will vary from pipe to pipe). The velocity of a running ductile fracture in natural gas is of the order of 100-250 m.s-1, with lower velocities observed in higher

The empirical relationship summarised in Fig. 6 is based on tests conducted using natural gas. The relationship between toughness and the length of a rupture in a pipeline transporting liquid or dense phase CO2 is not known. Nevertheless, Fig. 6 is indicative. THE DECOMPRESSION CHARACTERISTICS OF A GAS, A LIQUID AND DENSE PHASE CO2 A rupture initiates a decompression (expansion) wave in the fluid that propagates through the fluid in both directions away from the rupture. The leading edge of the decompression wave travels at the acoustic velocity (speed of sound) in the fluid at the initial pressure, pi, and initial temperature, Ti, less the outflow velocity toward the rupture. The decompression is rapid and it is therefore considered to be an isentropic expansion process. The isentropic decompression of liquid or dense phase CO 2 is characteristic of a high vapour pressure liquid. The initial decompression in the liquid phase is rapid. The isentropic decompression path passes through the liquid phase, crosses the saturated liquid line (the bubble point curve) and then passes through the two-phase region. The speed of sound in the twophase region is much slower than that in the liquid phase. The result is a very long plateau in the decompression velocity curve. The pressure at the plateau is the saturation pressure, ps; this is the pressure at which the decompression path crosses from the liquid phase into the two phase region. The isentropic decompression path and the decompression curve of CO2 in the liquid or dense phase are illustrated in Fig. 7 (calculated using DECOM [16,17]). Also shown are the decompression curves for water, methane and a binary mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The initial speed of sound in CO2 (dense phase) is greater than that of natural gas at the same initial conditions, but less than approximately half that of water,

4 And note that the concentration of CO2 in this CO2-rich mixture is lower than would likely be transported in a pipeline.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

160
pi 140
CO2+N2

160
pi 140 120
CO2+N2 H2O CO2

120

pressure, barg

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10
gas

pressure, barg

CO2

ps

100 80 60 40 20 0
pi, barg Ti, C 150.0 20.0 CH4

ps

ps

ps

20 30 temperature, C

40

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 velocity, m.s-1

Fig. 7 Isentropic decompression curve and decompression path for 100 mol.% CO2 and 87.5 mol.% CO2 & 12.5% N2 at 150 barg and 20C, and isentropic decompression curves for methane and water

toughness pipe. Higher velocities have been observed close to the origin in the initiation pipe due to the opening effect. Maxey (1983) [18] reported a fracture velocity of 197 m.s-1 in a full-scale test with CO2 in the dense phase. The acoustic velocity of water is much higher than the velocity of the fracture, even close to the origin. The pressure will drop very rapidly (opening effect not withstanding), see Fig. 7. In the case of CO2 (or a CO2-rich mixture) and CH4, the initial acoustic velocity is much closer to the velocity of the fracture, but CO2 decompresses much more rapidly (see Fig. 7). A West Jefferson Test is the simplest way of investigating this complex behaviour. FULL-SCALE FRACTURE PROPAGATION TESTS ON DENSE PHASE CO2 There is little experimental data on fracture propagation in CO2 pipelines in the published literature. Three tests are reported. Maxey (1983) [18] describes one test. Additional information is given in Wilkowski et al. (2006) [19]. Ahluwalia and Gupta (1985) [20] describe two tests (partial information is also repeated in Marsili and Stevick (1990) [21]). The full-scale test commissioned by National Grid will be the first fully-instrumented full-scale fracture propagation test. Maxey (1983), and Wilkowski et al. (2006), describe a test on a length of 12.75 inch (323.9 mm) diameter, 0.223 inch (5.7 mm) wall thickness, X65 pipe. The test, identified as Test 80-20, was conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute as part of a series of tests on the design of mechanical crack arrestors for the then American Gas Association. The results were also used in studies of gas decompression. Test 80-20 is similar to the Athens tests conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute in the 1960s and 70s. The test

section was 20-30 ft (6.1-9.1 m) long. The total length of the test rig, including reservoirs, was 60 ft (18.3 m). The reservoirs were anchored using concrete blocks. The 2/3 specimen size Charpy V-notch impact energy of the pipe was 13-21 ft.lbf (17.6-28.5 J). The flattened transverse strap yield strengths were 63-75 ksi (434.4 to 517.1 N.mm-2). The test was conducted with 100 mol.% CO2 in the liquid phase. The initial pressure was 1,200 psig (82.74 barg) and the initial temperature was 80F (26.7C). The pressure in the flaps behind the propagating fracture was measured. The pressure at the crack tip was 77.9 barg (1130 psig), falling to approximately 80 percent of this value at two pipe diameters behind the crack tip [18]. This is slightly higher than the predicted saturation pressure (59.5 barg). The fracture velocity was 197 m.s-1 (647 ft.s-1) [18]. The crack arrestors were loose steel sleeves [19]. The fracture on one side went through the first arrestor before being stopped by the second. The fracture on the other side went through the first arrestor, broke the second arrestor and was stopped by the third. Ahluwalia and Gupta (1985) describe two tests using 508 mm (20 inch) diameter pipe to demonstrate the ability of composite crack arrestors to arrest a running ductile fracture in a pipeline transporting CO2. The tests were also conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute. The total length of each test vessel was approximately 18 m. The vessels were installed in a 2 m deep trench and covered with sand. Although of a similar length to Test 80-20, above, the tests differ in that the ends were not restrained in anchor blocks (and, in this regard, these two tests are similar to the three West Jefferson Tests conducted on behalf of National Grid, see below). The test conditions were as follows:

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Fig. 8 A full-scale test of composite crack arrestors in a 508 mm (20 inch) diameter pipe [20,21]

144 barg and 42.25C in 11.13 mm wall thickness, X70 pipe with a toughness of 117.3 J; and 93 barg and 34.85C in 7.62 mm wall thickness, X52 pipe with a toughness of 20.3 J. The quoted impact energies are assumed to be full-size equivalent values (the pipes are too thin to extract full-size specimens). The rupture was initiated using an explosive charge. The length of the charge is not reported. In the first test (Test 1) a crack arrestor was installed on only one side. The fracture ran to the end of the pipe in the side with no crack arrestor and to the arrestor on the other side. Fig. 8 is a photograph of the fractured pipe after the first test [20,21]. In the second test (Test 2), crack arrestors were installed on both sides. The fracture ran to the arrestors. The composition of the CO2 used in the two tests is not quoted. Ahluwalia & Gupta (1985) and Marsili & Stevick (1990) make a reference to duplicating the CO 2 conditions in actual pipelines [the Canyon Reef Carriers Pipelines]. Marsili and Stevick (1990) state that the composition of the gas transported in the Canyon Reef Carriers Pipeline is approximately 95 vol.% CO2, 5 vol.% hydrocarbon gas (methane, etc.), less than 0.5 vol.% N2, and 100 parts per million H2S. However, it is understood that the CO2 for the tests was commercially supplied in cylinders [22-24]. The observed saturation pressure is reported to have been approximately 69 barg in both tests [20]. The predicted saturation pressures, assuming 100 mol.% CO2, are 65.8 barg for Test 1 and 68.0 barg for Test 2, i.e. the observed saturation pressure is higher than predicted5. The three tests clearly demonstrate that ductile fractures can propagate in pipelines transporting liquid or dense phase CO2. However, none of the tests were designed to validate the
The predicted saturation pressure for a mixtures of 95 mol.% CO2 and 5 mol.% CH4 are 5-8 bar higher than the reported saturation pressures.
5

semi-empirical methods for predicting the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture. Also, Tests 1 and 2 are not valid full-scale fracture propagation tests, because the test vessels were not fully restrained. None of the tests were fully instrumented. Nevertheless, the results are informative. The Two Curve Model has been used to predict the results of the three tests. Fractures are predicted to propagate in Test 80-20 and Test 2, see Fig. 9. The fractures did propagate. The toughness required to arrest a fracture is at least several times higher than the measured toughness. In Test 1, propagate is predicted using the reported saturation pressure of 69 barg, but arrest using a predicted saturation pressure of 65.8 barg (100 mol.% CO2). A long, wide rupture was observed, see Fig. 8. Test 1 is considered more likely to be an example of correctly predicting propagate, rather than of incorrectly predicting arrest. The discrepancy in the saturation pressure might be due to the accidental or intentional addition of other components (such as nitrogen or methane) [22-24]. The three tests demonstrate that long, wide ruptures are possible in a liquid or dense phase CO2 pipeline. However, the length of the charge used to initiate the rupture in each test is not reported; the tests were conducted using relatively small diameter (12.75 and 20 inch) and thin-wall (less than 12.7 mm) line pipe; and the pipe had a relatively low toughness (less than 120 J). Large diameter, thick-wall line pipe is geometrically stiffer. The toughness of modern line pipe steel typically exceeds 200 J. Therefore, the tests are not applicable to large diameter, thick-wall line pipe with a high toughness. Therefore, National Grid has conducted three West Jefferson Tests. The tests were designed to investigate if it was indeed possible to create long, wide ruptures in modern, high

200
1:1

predicted arrest toughness, J

150

propagate
ps=69 barg

100

Y=517 N.mm-2

ps=65.8 barg (?)

50

arrest
Test 1, Ahluwalia & Gupta (1985) Test 2 80-20, Maxey (1983) & Wilkowski et al. (2006)

0 50 100 150 200 measured toughness (full-size equiv.), J


Fig. 9 The measured toughness and the predicted arrest toughness of the three full-scale tests

Copyright 2012 by ASME

toughness line pipe steels using a dense phase CO2-rich mixture. WHAT IS A WEST JEFFERSON TEST? In the early 1960s, the Battelle Memorial Institute began an extensive programme of experimental and theoretical work on fracture propagation in pipelines, on behalf of the then Pipeline Research Council of the American Gas Association. The work was part of the NG-18 research programme. One of the several types of test that were conducted was a partial pneumatic-pressurised experiment on a short test vessel, typically 15-20 ft (less than 6 m) long, containing a machined through-wall slot. The test vessel was instrumented with pressure and temperature transducers, and timing wires. The through-wall slot was sealed with an internal seal of negligible stiffness. The vessel was then filled to 90 to 94% by volume with water or brine, depending on the test temperature, and then pressurised with nitrogen to failure. The tests were conducted at Battelle facilities located near West Jefferson, Ohio, and they became known as West Jefferson Tests [25]. The West Jefferson Tests were used to investigate how the pipe fractured and the factors that influenced the characteristics of the fracture. The speed, fracture surface appearance, number of cracks and fracture pattern were measured. The three West Jefferson Tests described here differ from the original West Jefferson Tests in that the vessel is pressurised with dense phase CO2 and failure is initiated using a shaped explosive charge. However, the purpose of the tests is identical, i.e. to produce a fracture (rupture) and measure its characteristics. THE WEST JEFFERSON TESTS Three West Jefferson Tests have been conducted to investigate the behaviour of ruptures in a liquid (dense) phase CO2 pipeline. Specifically, the tests are designed to investigate the factors that influence the appearance of a rupture in a liquid (dense) phase CO2 pipeline. The three West Jefferson Tests were conducted using modern (i.e. high toughness), 914.0 mm (36 inch) diameter, 25.4 mm wall thickness, Grade L450 line pipe. This is the same geometry and grade as National Grid are proposing to use in a full-scale fracture propagation test. The three tests differ in the length of the explosive charge that was used to create the initial through-wall defect, and the (predicted) saturation pressure, see below. The set-up for each West Jefferson Test is illustrated in Fig. 10. In Test 01, one (triple random) length of pipe was used. In Test 02, two half lengths of pipe were used. In Test 03, two (double random) lengths of pipe were used. The length of the test vessel in each test is given in Table 1. The vessels are short compared to a shock tube test or a full-scale fracture propagation test, but are long enough to observe the appearance of a rupture prior to the arrival of the reflected wave. The average yield and tensile strength, and the average full-size Charpy V-notch impact energy of each pipe are given in

Test No. 01 02 03

length of vessel, m 16.16 16.97 (8.43+8.54) 22.71 (5.955+10.80+5.955)

Notes: 1. In Test 02, Pipe Nos. 44993 and 44992 were welded together. The explosive charge was centred on the girth weld. 2. In Test 03, Pipe No. 55 was cut in half and one half was welded to each end of Pipe No. 33. The north end of Pipe No. 33 was positioned at the east end of the test vessel. 3. The lengths do not include the domed ends welded to each end of the test vessel. Table 1 The length of the test vessel

Test No. 01 02 03

Pipe No. 3553 44993 (W) 44992 (E) 33 (S) 33 (N) 55

yield strength, N.mm-2 533.3 491.0 511.0 515.0 534.5 -

tensile strength, N.mm-2 610.7 582.2 589.0 633.0 643.5 -

1/1 CVN, J 201 184 194 199 193 342

Notes: 1. The tensile tests were conducted at ambient temperature. 2. The CVN impact tests were conducted at 0C. 3. The CVN impact test specimens taken from Pipe Nos. 3553, 44992 and 44993 were tested in a machine with a capacity of 300 J. The specimens taken from Pipe Nos. 33 and 55 were tested in a machine with a capacity of 750 J. None of the specimens fractured. The shear areas were all 100%. 4. The shear area measured in a drop weight tear test was higher than 85% for all of the pipes. Table 2 The average yield and tensile strength, and average Charpy V-notch impact energy of each pipe

Test No. 01 02 03

composition, mol. % CO2 100 100 87.5 12.5 N2

pressure, barg 148.2 150.9 149.0

temperature, C 16.8 8.2 15.2

Table 3 The test conditions

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Test No. 01 02 03

length of explosive charge, m 0.7 (approx. two times the leak-rupture length at 148.2 barg (pi)) 3.0 (approx. one and a half times the leak-rupture length at 33.3 barg (ps)) 1.8 (approx. two and a half times the leak-rupture length at 92.2 barg (ps))
Table 4 The length of the explosive charge

Test No. 01 02 Test No. 03

T01 & P01 -6.125 -5.75 T01 & P01 -6.0

P02 -3.125 -3.0

P03 -1.0 -1.0 T02 & P03 6.0

P04 1.0 1.0 T03 10.0

P05 3.125 3.0

T02 & P06 6.125 5.75

T01 P01

1.35 m 2.125 m
P02
P03 P04 P05

3.0 m

T02 P06

Test 01
No. 3553
18 10 1 9

T01 P01

2.5 m
P02 P03

2.0 m
P04 P05

2.75 m

T02 P06

Test 02
No. 44993
9 1 10 18

P02 2.0

No. 44992

T01 P01

6.9 m

2.9 m
P02

4.0 m

T02 P03

T03

Notes: 1. The distance (in metres) is that measured from the end of the explosive charge to each transducer. A negative distance is in a westerly direction. A positive distance is in an easterly direction. The distance to the centre of the test vessel is given by adding (subtracting) the half-length of the explosive charge. 2. P denotes a fast-response pressure transducer. 3. T denotes a temperature transducer mounted on the external surface of the test reservoir. These transducers measure the pipe wall temperature. 4. In Test 01, P05 did not record usable data. 5. In Test 02, P02 and P03 did not record usable data. Table 5 The location of the pressure and temperature transducers

Test 03
No. 55(S)
9

No. 33(S)
1 10

No. 33(N)
18

No. 55(N)

Fig. 10 The West Jefferson Tests

Test No. 01 02 03

9 4.25 -4.25 -4.25

8 3.5 -3.75 -3.75

7 2.75 -3.25 -3.25

6 2.25 -2.75 -2.75

5 1.75 -2.25 -2.25

4 1.25 -1.75 -1.75

3 0.75 -1.25 -1.25

2 0.5 -0.75 -0.75

1 0.25 -0.25 -0.25

10 -0.25 0.25 0.25

11 -0.5 0.75 0.75

12 -0.75 1.25 1.25

13 -1.25 1.75 1.75

14 -1.75 2.25 2.25

15 -2.25 2.75 2.75

16 -2.75 3.25 3.25

17 -3.5 3.75 3.75

18 -4.25 4.25 4.25

Notes: 1. The distance (in metres) is that measured from the end of the explosive charge to each timing wire. A negative distance is in a westerly direction, and a positive distance is in an easterly direction. 2. In Test 03, timing wire no. 9 did not record usable data. Table 6 The location of the timing wires

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 2. The upper-shelf impact energy of all of the test pipes at the respective test temperatures was in excess of 150 J. Test 01 was trenched to a depth of approximately 1.0 m, and approximately 1.0 m at each end of the vessel was buried. Tests 02 and 03 were completely buried to a depth of approximately 1.2 m (to the top of the pipe). Tests 01 and 02 were conducted using 100 mol.% CO2. Test 03 was conducted using 87.5 mol.% CO2 and 12.5 mol.% N2. The test conditions measured in each test are given in Table 3. The composition of the binary mixture in Test 03 was chosen so as to give a higher saturation pressure than that observed in either Tests 01 or 02. The predicted saturation pressure in Test 03 is over two times higher than that in Tests 01 and 02 (see below). The three tests were initiated at an initial pressure of approximately 150 barg and at ambient temperature. The tests were initiated by detonating a longitudinally orientated explosive charge. In Test 03, a small circulating loop was installed to mix the binary mixture during pressurisation. The circulating loop was isolated prior to initiating the test. The length of the explosive charge in each test is given in Table 4. The length of the explosive charge is based on the initial pressure and the saturation pressure in each test, as discussed further below. Tests 01 and 02 were conducted in April 2011. Test 03 was conducted in August 2011. Instrumentation The three West Jefferson Tests were each instrumented with static pressure transducers, fast-response pressure transducers, temperature transducers (thermocouples) and timing wires. One Druck PTX-610 static pressure transducer records the pressure in the test vessel. The initial pressure (pi) is the pressure measured by this static pressure transducer. Six (6) Kulite CT-375M fast-response pressure transducers in Tests 01 and 02, and three (3) in Test 03, measure the expansion wave. The location of the pressure transducers in each test is given in Table 5, and shown in Fig. 10. In the section of the test vessel that is instrumented with timing wires, the pressure transducers are located midway between adjacent pairs of wires. The pressure transducers are temperature compensated. They are mounted in bosses and are flush with the internal bore of the test vessel. The transducers were installed at the 3 oclock position. Two (2) welded tip, PTFE insulated Type T thermocouples in Tests 01 and 02, and three (3) in Test 03, measure the pipe wall temperature. The thermocouples are spot welded on to the external surface of the pipe. The location of the thermocouples in each test is given in Table 5, and shown in Fig. 10. The initial temperature (Ti) is the average of the temperatures measured by these thermocouples (i.e. the average pipe wall temperature) in the 30 seconds prior to initiating the test. Eighteen (18) timing wires, nine (9) on each side of the explosive charge, measure the speed of the fracture. The location of the timing wires in each test is given in Table 6.

The first timing wire is 0.25 m from the edge of the explosive charge. The distance between adjacent timing wires is 0.250.75 m. In Test 03, the distance between the timing wires was 0.5 m. The location of the fast-response pressure transducers and the timing wires in each test was based upon the predicted behaviour in each test (i.e. a short or long rupture). A sampling frequency of 100 kHz was used. Normal and high-speed video recordings of each test were taken from several vantage points, to observe the formation of the crater and the transient dispersion of the dense phase CO 2. Tests 01, 02 and 03 The decompression behaviour of liquid or dense phase CO 2 is characteristic of that of a high vapour pressure liquid; the pressure drops rapidly from the initial pressure to a saturation pressure. The decompression curve exhibits a very long plateau, see Fig. 7. A leak-rupture boundary can be defined using a failure criterion for a through-wall defect. Part-wall defects equal to or longer than the critical length will fail as a rupture. The through-wall NG-18 equations, developed by the Battelle Memorial Institute in the 1960s, are one example of such a failure criterion for longitudinally-orientated through-wall defects in a cylinder subject to internal pressure [2,3]. The flow-stress dependent form of the through-wall NG-18 equations is used here to define the leak-rupture boundary. The leak-rupture boundary depends on the initial pressure. However, the appearance of a rupture might depend upon the length of the defect and the saturation pressure. The possible relationship between the initial pressure, the saturation pressure and the leak-rupture boundary is illustrated in Fig. 11. The predicted decompression curves for Tests 01, 02 and 03 (calculated using DECOM) and the leak-rupture boundary for each test are plotted6. The length of the initial defect in Tests 01, 02 and 03 is also indicated in Fig. 11. A defect of length 338-376 mm is predicted to fail as a rupture at the initial pressure. A longer defect is predicted to fail as a rupture at the (lower) saturation pressure. The initial pressure will define whether or not a defect fails as a leak or a rupture. The length of the defect and the saturation pressure might define the appearance of a rupture. A short defect that would rupture at the initial pressure might result in a short, narrow rupture (as in a liquid pipeline), whilst a long defect that would rupture at the (lower) saturation pressure might result in a long, wide rupture (as in a gas pipeline). The length of the explosive charge (and hence the length of the initial defect) in each test is based on the initial pressure and the saturation pressure in each test, see Fig. 11, with the intention of creating either a short, narrow rupture or a long, wide rupture. The toughness of the pipe relative to the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture may also
6 The decompression curves are calculated using the initial conditions given in Table 3. The leak-rupture boundaries are calculated using the nominal diameter and wall thickness (914x25.4 mm) and a flow stress equal to the average of the yield and tensile strengths given in Table 2.

11

Copyright 2012 by ASME

160
pi, barg Ti, C

160
Test 01 148.2 16.8

140 120

pi

140 120

pi

Test 02 150.9 Test 03 149.0

8.2 15.2

pressure, barg

100 ps 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 velocity, m.s-1 600 700

pressure, barg

100 80 60
LEAK RUPTURE

ps

ps

40 20 0 0

ps
02

500 01

1000 1500 defect length (2c), mm

032000

2500

Fig. 11 The predicted decompression curves for Tests 01, 02 and 03, and the relationship between the initial pressure and the saturation pressure, and the leak-rupture boundary

have an effect on the appearance of a rupture (as implied by Fig. 6). The predicted appearance, below, is based on the length of the initial defect. Test 01 The initial defect in Test 01 is short. The defect is approximately twice the leak-rupture length at the initial pressure of 148.2 barg. It is less than half the leak-rupture length at the predicted saturation pressure of 40.8 barg. A short, narrow rupture was predicted. Test 02 The initial defect in Test 02 is long. The defect is approximately one and a half times the leak-rupture length at the predicted saturation pressure of 33.3 barg. A long, wide rupture was predicted. Test 03 The initial defect in Test 03 is long. The defect is approximately two and a half times the leak-rupture length at the predicted saturation pressure of 92.2 barg. A long, wide rupture was predicted. THE RESULTS The three West Jefferson Tests were instrumented with fast-response pressure transducers and timing wires. The fast-response pressure transducers in each test vessel record the change in pressure versus time as the expansion wave propagates along the vessel. There are far fewer pressure transducers than would be found in a shock tube test (e.g. Cosham et al. (2012) [17]), but the data can still be used to construct a decompression curve. The data recorded is noisier than that recorded in a shock tube test because the test vessel is subject to significant dynamic loading and is not anchored. The data recorded in the first 50 ms of Tests 01, 02 and 03 is presented in Fig. 12a-c, respectively. A sampling frequency of 100 kHz was used. The data in Fig. 12a-c is partially smoothed using the loess method of locally weighted

polynomial regression7 [26]. A time interval of 0.5 ms was used. The shapes of the pressure versus time traces recorded in each test are similar. The pressure is constant, apart from some noise in the data, until the arrival of the leading edge of the expansion wave. The leading edge of the expansion wave moves at the speed of sound in the fluid at the initial pressure and initial temperature. The pressure then drops rapidly. The pressure drops to the saturation pressure, although a clear plateau is only visible in the data for Test 03, see Fig. 12c. The arrival of the reflected wave is visible in the data recorded in Tests 01 and 02. In Test 03, the propagation of the rupture resulted in the failure of the pressure transducers prior to the arrival of the reflected wave. The smoothed data is used to construct a fan diagram (a plot of time versus distance) and then the decompression wave velocity curve, i.e. a plot of pressure versus velocity. In constructing the fan diagram, the data is further smoothed in some places, using an interval of up to 2 ms. A straight line can be fitted to the times at which a given pressure wave arrives at each pressure transducer (at least before the effects of friction become significant). The reciprocal of the gradient of this line is the velocity of the pressure wave. The gradient of each set of data points is determined using the least squares method. Two decompression curves can be constructed in each test, one using the pressure transducers on the west side of the vessel and the other using those on the east side of the vessel. At least two pressure transducers are required to construct a decompression curve. The decompression curves for Tests 01,

7 The loess method locally fits a cubic polynomial to the data using the method of weighted least squares. It tends to preserve more of the features of the data than a simple moving average.

12

Copyright 2012 by ASME

160
140 120
18 10 1

Test 01
T01 T02 P01 P02 P03 P04 P05 P06
9

160
140 120

CO2

pressure, barg

pressure, barg

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 time, ms 40 50

100
W (P01,02&03)

80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 velocity, m.s-1 600 700


pi, barg Ti, C Test 01 148.2 16.8 E (P04&06)

160
140 120
pressure, barg
T01 P01 P02P03
9 1

Test 02
T02 P04 P05 P06
10 18

160
140 120

CO2

pressure, barg

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 time, ms 40 50

100
E (P04,05&06)

80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 velocity, m.s-1 600 700


pi, barg Ti, C Test 02 150.9 8.2

160
140 120
pressure, barg

Test 03

160
140 120

CO2+N2

E (P02&03)

pressure, barg

100 80 60 40
9 1 10 18

100 80 60 40 20 0
pi, barg Ti, C Test 03 149.0 15.2

T01 P01

P02

T02 P03

T03

20 0 0 10 20 30 time, ms 40 50

100

200

300 400 500 velocity, m.s-1

600

700

Fig. 12 Pressure-time traces (partially smoothed) for Tests 01 and 02, 100 mol.% CO2, and Test 03, 87.5 mol.% CO2+12.5 mol.% N2, and the observed and predicted decompression curves

13

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Test No. 01 02 03

length of explosive charge, m 0.7 3.0 1.8

length of rupture, m 3.045 5.600 15.665

description of the rupture fish-mouth opening and then ring-off fish-mouth opening and then ring-off long, wide rupture that ran through the lower toughness pipe (No. 33) and then arrested in the higher toughness pipe (No. 55) at each end

Table 7 A description of the ruptures in the three West Jefferson Tests

02 and 03 are given in Fig. 12d-f, respectively. Note that two of the decompression curves (for the east side of Tests 01 and 03) are only based on two pressure transducers. The timing wires record the propagation of the rupture along the test vessel. The time at which the timing wire breaks is the time when the rupture has reached that timing wire8. The velocity of the rupture is calculated by taking the difference between the time at which successive pairs of timing wires break and dividing it by the distance between the timing wires. This is the average velocity between pairs of timing wires. The data is used to construct a plot of the velocity of the rupture versus distance. Two plots can be constructed in each test, one using the timing wires on the west side of the vessel and the other using those on the east side of the vessel. Plots of the fracture velocity versus the distance from the end of the initial defect for Tests 01, 02 and 03 are given in Fig. 13. The data recorded by the pressure transducers and timing wires can be combined in a fan diagram to indicate the pressure that is driving the fracture. This is done for Test 03 in Fig. 14, as discussed further below. After each of the West Jefferson Tests, the end-to-end length of the rupture was measured and, in Tests 01 and 02, the size and shape of the opening was measured. The size and shape of the crater that was formed in each test was also measured. Photographs were taken of each of the ruptures, see Fig. 15, Fig. 16 and Fig. 17, below (but note that the three photographs are not to the same scale). A description of the ruptures in each of the three tests is given in Table 7, and is discussed further below. The ruptures in all three of the tests exhibited the classical features of a running ductile fracture. Test 01 The length of the initial defect in Test 01 was 0.7 m. The defect was predicted to rupture at the initial pressure, but not at the predicted saturation pressure. A short, narrow rupture was predicted. A short rupture was observed, see Fig. 15. The rupture is similar to that in a liquid pipeline. The initial defect ruptured and extended by approximately 1.0 m in each direction and then rang-off, see Fig. 15 and Table 7. The rupture shows evidence of the classical fish-mouth appearance of a rupture in a liquid pipeline prior to ring-off.
8

Ring-off at both ends resulted in the large flap. Test 01 was only partially buried at the ends of the vessel. The force of the release was sufficient to lift the pipe partially out of the trench and to bend the pipe. The opening might not have been as large had the pipe been buried. The data recorded by the pressure transducers suggests a plateau at 30-40 barg. The plateau in the decompression curve is at approximately 40 barg or slightly below, see Fig. 12a&c.

300
250
W

fracture velocity, m.s-1

200
150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 distance, m 4 5
Test 01 Test 02 Test 03 E

Fig. 13 Fracture velocity versus distance from the end of the initial defect

50 40 30 20 10 0

W E

time, ms

Test 03

89 94 149 barg

Ductile fractures are associated with significant plastic deformation ahead of the crack tip. Therefore, a timing wire would typically break before the arrival of the crack tip. However, this does not affect the use of timing wires to estimate the velocity of the fracture.

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 distance, m
Fig. 14 Fan diagram for Test 03

14

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Fig. 15 Test 01

Fig. 16 Test 02

This is in reasonable agreement with the predicted plateau of 40.8 barg. The decompression curves on the two sides of the rupture are similar. Three timing wires on each side of the initial defect were broken by the rupture. The measured velocity of the rupture did not exceed 75 m.s-1, see Fig. 13. The rupture was rapidly decelerating. The rupture arrested on both sides approximately 18 ms after the test was initiated (based on the times at which the third wire on each side broke). This is before the arrival of the reflected waves was observed at pressure transducer P01 and P06. Other timing wires broke some 100 ms later, as the pipe was lifted out of the trench. The toughness of the pipe in Test 01 is approximately eight times higher than the predicted toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture. Test 02 The length of the initial defect in Test 02 was 3.0 m. The defect was predicted to rupture at the initial pressure and at the predicted saturation pressure. A long, wide rupture was predicted. A short rupture was observed, see Fig. 16. The rupture is similar to that in a liquid pipeline. The initial defect ruptured and extended by approximately 1.3 m in each direction and then rang-off, see Fig. 16 and Table 7. The rupture shows evidence of the classical fish-mouth appearance of a rupture in a liquid pipeline prior to ring-off. Ring-off at both ends resulted in the large flap. Test 02 was buried to a depth of 1.2 m. The opening of the pipe was restricted by the backfill. The opening angle of the flap in Test 02 is not as large as that in Test 01. The data recorded by the pressure transducers suggests a plateau at 30-40 barg. The plateau in the decompression curve is at approximately 33 barg, see Fig. 12b&d. This is in good agreement with the predicted plateau of 33.3 barg. Three timing wires on each side of the initial defect were broken by the rupture. The measured velocity of the rupture

did not exceed 75 m.s-1, see Fig. 13. The rupture was rapidly decelerating. The rupture on the west side arrested approximately 43 ms after the test was initiated, and on the east side after approximately 36 ms (based on the times at which the third wire on each side broke). The yield strength and toughness of the pipe on the west side is slightly lower than that on the east side, which is consistent with the slightly different behaviour of the rupture on each side of the initial defect. However, the differences in the material properties are small, so the difference in the results may be coincidental. The rupture arrested on both side after the arrival of the reflected waves at pressure transducers P03 and P04. The reflected wave had not reach the second timing wire before it broke 9. Arrest may have been affected by the reflected wave. The velocity of the rupture in Test 02 was similar to that in Test 01 and much lower than that in Test 03, see Fig. 13, prior to the arrival of the reflected wave. Therefore, it is thought that the rupture would have arrested by ring-off even had the test vessel been longer. The toughness of the two pipes in Test 02 is approximately eleven times higher than the predicted toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture. The ruptures observed in Test 01 and 02 are smaller than a typical rupture in a gas pipeline. They are similar to a rupture in a liquid pipeline, albeit that they are wider. The wider rupture might be associated with the force exerted by the saturation pressure on the sides of the rupture. The result of Test 01 is broadly as predicted. The result of Test 02 is not as predicted, at least as based on the length of the initial defect. It is not clear whether this is because dense phase CO2 behaves more like a liquid than a gas, or because of the high toughness of the steel. The relatively high toughness of the pipe in Tests 01 and 02 implies that the ruptures in the two tests will be short, see Fig. 6. The result of Test 02 suggests that the higher
9

The third timing wire in Test 01 and the second timing wire in Test 02 are 0.75 m form the end of the initial defect.

15

Copyright 2012 by ASME

toughness has a more significant effect than the longer initial defect (i.e. longer than the leak-rupture boundary at the saturation pressure). Tests 01 and 02 demonstrate that a long running ductile fracture would not be created under the given test conditions. Test 03 has a higher saturation pressure than in Tests 01 and 02. The toughness of the pipe is then not significantly higher than the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture. Test 03 The length of the initial defect in Test 03 was 1.8 m. The defect was predicted to rupture at the initial pressure and at the predicted saturation pressure. A long, wide rupture was predicted. A long, wide rupture was observed, see Fig. 17. The rupture is similar to that in a gas pipeline. The initial defect ruptured and extended completely through Pipe No. 33 (the initiation pipe). On the west side, the rupture extended approximately 2.255 m into one half of Pipe No. 55. On the east side it extended approximately 2.610 m into the other half of Pipe No. 55. The rupture did not ring-off. The appearance of the rupture is typical of a running ductile fracture. The initiation pipe has been flattened. The fracture surfaces are consistent with a running ductile fracture. The data recorded by the pressure transducers suggests a plateau at 89-91 barg. The plateau in the decompression curve is at approximately 90 barg, see Fig. 12c&e. This is in reasonable agreement with the predicted plateau of 92.2 barg. The plateau in Test 03 is clearer than in Tests 01 and 02 because it is at a higher pressure (significantly higher than the choke pressure) and because the test vessel is longer. All of the timing wires on each side of the initial defect were broken by the rupture. The measured velocity of the rupture was 135-195 m.s-1, see Fig. 13. The rupture was slightly decelerating away from the origin. The velocity of the rupture on both sides of the origin is similar. The peak in the velocity on the west side is due to the time at which timing wire no. 4 is recorded to have broken. It is considered very unlikely (if not physically impossible) that the rupture will have accelerated, decelerated and accelerated over a distance of approximately 1.5 m to the extent suggested in Fig. 13. Therefore, it is suspected that timing wire no. 4 broke prematurely for some unknown reason. The reflected wave arrived at pressure transducers P01 and P03 some 10-15 ms after the rupture passed through all of the timing wires. The velocities in Fig. 13 are therefore representative of a rupture in a long pipeline. The fan diagram for Test 03, Fig. 14, indicates that the pressure driving the rupture was the saturation pressure. The velocity of the rupture was slower than the start of the plateau. The velocity of the pressure wave at the start of the plateau was approximately 300 m.s-1 (see Fig. 12f). The average velocity of the rupture on the east side was approximately 154 m.s-1, and on the west side it was 158 m.s-1. It was decelerating slightly as it propagated (see Fig. 13).

Fig. 17 Test 03

The rupture arrested in Pipe No. 55. The toughness of this pipe is higher than the predicted toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture. However, the rupture arrested after the arrival of the reflected wave. Arrest may have been affected by the reflected wave. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn about the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture, other than that it is similar to or higher than the toughness of Pipe No. 33.

16

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The toughness of Pipe No. 33 in Test 03 is approximately two times lower than the predicted toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture10,11. The rupture observed in Test 03 was a long, wide rupture. The rupture is similar to that in a gas pipeline. Test 03 demonstrates that a long running ductile fracture would be created under the given test conditions. Tests 01 and 02 demonstrate that a rupture in a pipeline transporting CO2 in the liquid or dense phase will be short if the initial defect is short (i.e. predicted to rupture at the initial pressure) or if the toughness of the pipe is significantly higher than the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture (the arrest toughness)12. Test 03 demonstrates that the rupture will be long and wide if the initial defect is long (i.e. predicted to rupture at the saturation pressure) and the toughness of the pipe is similar to, or lower than, the arrest toughness. The decompression behaviour observed in each of the tests is in reasonable agreement with the predicted decompression behaviour. The plateau in the decompression curve is long. The ruptures in Test 01 and 02 are similar to ruptures in liquid pipelines. The rupture in Test 03 is similar to a rupture in a gas pipeline. The tests demonstrate that CO2 in the liquid or dense phase can exhibit liquid-like behaviour and gas-like behaviour. The two factors that are thought to affect the appearance are the length of the initial defect and the ratio of the toughness of the line pipe to the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture (as implied by Fig. 6), both of which factors are related to the saturation pressure. Test 03 lies slightly below the lower bound curve in Fig. 6. Additional tests would be required to investigate this issue further, and to identify the relative importance of the two factors. DELAYED NUCLEATION? Shock tube tests with gaseous or liquid (dense) phase CO 2 and CO2-rich mixtures conducted on behalf of National Grid have consistently shown that the observed plateaux are lower than the predicted plateaux [16,17]. The most likely explanation for the trend is considered to be delayed nucleation. The decompression in the shock tube is rapid. The fluid may temporarily become supersaturated, i.e. a gas under conditions where it should be two-phase (gas and liquid) or a liquid under conditions where it should be two-phase (liquid
10

and gas). The phase change will then occur at a lower pressure than predicted assuming equilibrium conditions, i.e. the plateau is lower than predicted. The West Jefferson Tests are relatively short compared to a full-scale fracture propagation test or a shock tube test, and there are fewer pressure transducers. There are some differences between the decompression behaviour observed in a West Jefferson Test and that in a shock tube test or a full-scale test. A rupture does not instantaneously result in a full-bore release. The pressure decays more slowly than it would if there were an instantaneous full-bore release. This is the opening effect. In a shock tube test there is a near-instantaneous fullbore release and no opening effect. The West Jefferson Tests are too short (and do not have enough pressure transducers) to observe the transition from the region where the decompression behaviour is affected by the opening effect to where it can be predicted using models that assume an instantaneous full-bore release. The tests are, however, long enough to observe the saturation pressure before the arrival of the reflected wave, and to construct a decompression curve (albeit one based on two or three pressure transducers). A full-scale test is long enough to observe the full range of decompression behaviour. In the three West Jefferson Tests, the observed plateaux are similar to the predicted plateaux (see Fig. 12b,d&f). Tests 01 and 02 were conducted with 100 mol.% CO2, and so the reasonable agreement cannot be attributed to errors in the equation of state (see also Cosham et al. (2012) [17]). The West Jefferson Tests suggest (but do not confirm) that less delayed nucleation occurs in a rupture in a pipeline than is observed in a shock tube test, because of the opening effect. The issue of delayed nucleation requires further investigation in order to understand it in more detail. The fullscale fracture propagation test will provide further insights. CONCLUSIONS Three West Jefferson Tests have been conducted, two with dense phase CO2 and one with a CO2-rich binary mixture. Large diameter, thick-wall (914x25.4 mm, Grade L450) line pipe was used in each test. The following conclusions can be drawn: Tests 01 and 02 (both 100 mol.% CO2) resulted in short ruptures, similar to a rupture in a liquid pipeline. In Test 01, the initial defect was short. In Test 02, the initial defect was long. In Tests 01 and 02 the actual toughness of the pipe was significantly higher than the toughness required to arrest a running fracture. Test 03 resulted in a long, wide rupture, similar to a rupture in a gas pipeline. The initial defect was long. The actual toughness of the pipe was lower than the toughness required to arrest a running fracture. The rupture in Test 03 has the potential to transform into a running fracture. A rupture in modern, high toughness line pipe will be long and wide if the initial defect is long (i.e. predicted to rupture at the saturation pressure) and the toughness of the pipe is similar to, or lower than, the arrest toughness (i.e. if the saturation pressure is high). Therefore, the length of the initial

The predicted saturation pressure (92.2 barg) is approximately 1.1 times higher than the arrest pressure of Pipe No. 33 (83.1-83.8 barg). 11 The toughness of Pipe No. 33 is approximately equal to the predicted toughness required to arrest a fracture (the arrest toughness) if the Two Curve Model is applied in its entirety, rather than in a simplified (and conservative) form where arrest is assumed to occur if the arrest pressure is equal to the saturation pressure. The shape of the decompression and fracture velocity curves is such that the two curves are not tangent, but there is a point at which the two curves intersect. It is at the end of the plateau. The predicted arrest toughness is very sensitive to the predicted length of the plateau in the decompression curve. The pressure transducers did not record sufficient data before the arrival of the reflected wave to allow the end of the plateau to be observed. 12 The arrest pressure is predicted using the saturation pressure.

17

Copyright 2012 by ASME

defect in the initiation pipe in a full-scale fracture propagation test with liquid or dense phase CO2 should be based on the saturation pressure, and not the (higher) initial pressure. The appearance of a rupture in a pipeline transporting CO 2 or CO2-rich mixtures may be like a rupture in liquid pipeline or a rupture in gas pipeline. The two factors that affect the appearance of a rupture are the length of the initial defect and the ratio of the toughness of the line pipe to the toughness required to arrest a running ductile fracture. Additional tests would be required to investigate the relative effect of these two factors. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge National Grid for permission to publish the paper. The authors also acknowledge technical discussions with Phil Cleaver (GL Noble Denton). REFERENCES
1.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Kiefner, J. F., 1969, Fracture Initiation, Paper G, Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association, Dallas, Texas, USA, AGA Catalogue No. L30075, pp. G1-G36. 2. Kiefner, J. F., Maxey, W. A., Eiber, R. J., and Duffy, A. R., 1973, The Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurised Cylinders, ASTM STP 536, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, USA, 1973, p. 461-481. 3. Maxey, W. A., 1974, Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest, Paper J, Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association, Houston, Texas, USA, 1974. 4. Shannon, R. W. E., 1974, Failure Behaviour of Line Pipe Defects, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 2, 1974, p. 243-255. 5. Cooper, R., 2010, CO2 pipeline transportation for CCS: an operators perspective, Proceedings of the First International Forum on the Transportation of CO2 by Pipeline, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1-2 July 2010. 6. Anon., Pipe failure and leak, Winchester, Kentucky, January 27, 2000, Pipeline Accident Brief, NTSB/PAB-01/02, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., May 3, 2001. 7. Anon., Rupture of Enbridge Pipeline and Release of Crude Oil near Cohasset, Minnesota, July 4, 2002, Pipeline Accident Report, NTSB/PAR-04/01, PB2004-916501, Notation 7514A, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., June 23, 2004. 8. Anon., Pipe failure and leak, Greenville, Texas, March 9, 2000, Pipeline Accident Brief, NTSB/PAB-01/03, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., July 6, 2001. 9. Anon., Pipeline Rupture and Subsequent Fire in Bellingham, Washington, June 10, 1999, Pipeline Accident Report, NTSB/PAR-02/02, PB2002-916502, Notation 7264A, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., October 8, 2002. 10. Anon., Pipeline Rupture, Liquid Butane Release, and Fire, Lively, Texas, August 24, 1996, Pipeline Accident Summary Report, NTSB/PAR-98/02/SUM, PB98-916503, Notation 7081, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., November 6, 1998. 11. Anon., Pipeline rupture and leak with vapor cloud 6 miles west of Kingman, Kansas, October 27, 2004, Pipeline Accident Brief,

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. 23. 24. 25.

26.

NTSB/PAB-07/02, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2007. Anon., Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Fire Near Carlsbad, New Mexico, August 19, 2000, Pipeline Accident Report, NTSB/PAR-03/01, PB2003-916501, Notation 7310B, National Transportation Safety Board, , Washington, D.C., February 11, 2003. Anon., Rupture of Hazardous Liquid Pipeline With Release and Ignition of Propane, Carmichael, Mississippi, November 1, 2007, Pipeline Accident Report, NTSB/PAR-09/01, PB2009-916501, Notation 7979A National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., October 14, 2009. Eiber, R. J., Bubenik, T. A., and Maxey, W. A., 1993, Fracture Control Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines, NG-18 Report No. 208, Final Report to Line Pipe Research Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association, Project PR-3-9113, Catalog No. L51691, December 1993. Eiber, R. J., Bubenik, T. A., 1993, Fracture Control Plan Methodology, Paper 8, Eighth Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association, Catalogue No. L51680, Houston, Texas, USA, 1993. Cosham, A., Jones, D. G., Armstrong, K., Allason, D., and Barnett, J., 2011, The Decompression Behaviour of Carbon Dioxide in the Gaseous Phase, Proceedings of the Second International Forum on the Transportation of CO2 by Pipeline, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 22-23 June 2011. Cosham, A., Jones, D. G., Armstrong, K., Allason, D., and Barnett, J., 2012, The Decompression Behaviour of Carbon Dioxide in the Dense Phase, Paper No.: IPC2012-90461, Proceedings of the 9th International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 24-28, 2012. Maxey, W. A., 1983, Gas Expansion Studies, Final Report to the American Gas Association, NG-18 Report No. 133, Battelle Memorial Institute, 1983. Wilkowski, G., Rudland, D., and Rothwell, B., 2006, How to Optimize the Design of Mechanical Crack Arrestors, Paper No.: IPC2006-10357, Proceedings of IPC2006, 2006 International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 25-29, 2006. Ahluwalia, K. S., and Gupta, G. D., 1985, Composite Reinforced Pipelines, Paper H3, Sixth International Conference on the Internal and External Protection of Pipes, BHRA, The Fluid Engineering Centre, Nice, France, 5-7 November, 1985, p. 341351. Marsili, D. L., Stevick, G. R., 1990, Reducing the Risk of Ductile Fracture on the Canyon Reef Carriers CO2 Pipeline, SPE20646, 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, USA, 1990. Private Communication with Brian N. Leis, Battelle Memorial Institute. Private Communication with Robert J. Eiber, Robert J. Eiber Consultant Inc. Private Communication with Gery Wilkowski, Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus. Eiber, R. J., 1969, Fracture Propagation, Paper I, Fourth Symposium on Line Pipe Research, American Gas Association, Catalog No. L30075, November 1969. Cleveland, W. S., 1979, Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 74, No. 368, December 1979, p. 829-836.

18

Copyright 2012 by ASME