FINAL THESIS SCHEME-C

ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE PIPELINE REMEDIATION METHODS Study Case of an Offshore Pipeline Remediation Project

Compiled by:

Sita Noor Indah 06/193858/TK/31658

JURUSAN TEKNIK SIPIL DAN LINGKUNGAN FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA YOGYAKARTA 2010

ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE PIPELINE REMEDIATION METHODS Study Case of an Offshore Pipeline Remediation Project1 By: Sita Noor Indah2 ABSTRACT Offshore pipelines are generally applied worldwide for transporting gas and oil. Increasing of offshore works due to world energy demand further stimulate to the use of offshore pipelines. In line with that, pipeline monitoring and maintenance activities also increase as integrity management due to its vital role in the energy transport and probability of environmental impact in case of incidents. One offshore pipeline crossing the North Sea lies between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Located in a dynamic seabed, some part of the pipeline are facing problems of pipeline exposures and free spans. This study is conducted as part of pipeline integrity management to support the decision process making of the remediation methods to overcome the problems of (1) free spans and (2) pipeline exposure in shipping lanes. There are two main objectives of the study, (1) to develops a tool to support decision making in choosing remediation method using Multi Criteria Evaluation and (2) determines the most appropriate remediation method to remediate offshore pipeline problems in the offshore study case pipeline. The results achieved from fulfilling the first objective i.e. to develop a tool to evaluate the alternatives of methods to remediate offshore pipeline problems (free spans in a dynamic seabed and exposures in shipping lanes) are presented in the form of the Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE). Analysis with the use of multi criteria allows considering the problem from several points of view. The tool requires remediation methods alternatives and criteria to judge these alternatives on. Criteria are established considering three aspects; (1) engineering, (2) environmental, and (3) cost. Each aspect is specified into several sub-aspects. Each sub-aspect has leading questions and criteria to assist in the scoring process. A set of rationalizations is made to yield the most optimal and objective results. Combine scoring and weighting gives weighted score (i.e. value). The total value is divided by total cost resulting in value-cost ratio. The value cost-ratio results in a ranking order of the considered remediation methods. Subsequently a sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate how the ranking of options is influenced by different scoring or weighting systems. To accomplish both objectives of the study, the tool is implemented in the study case pipeline. Three remediation methods are considered; (1) pipe lowering (re-burial), (2) adding material on top of the pipe (material dumping), and (3) artificial stabilization. Each remediation method is sub-divided into several specific methods. Two of the three remediation methods, however, are eliminated in this study to allow focusing on the decision process to use the material dumping method. This decision considers the environmental conditions of the actual location of the pipeline (waves, currents and seabed conditions). The method then requires specification of the type of material. The implementation of the MCE is resulted dumping gravel as the most appropriate method to remediate the problems. Key words: Offshore pipelines, pipeline remediation methods, free span, pipeline exposure, dynamic seabed, Multi Criteria Evaluation
1

Delivered on a bachelor final thesis seminar as part requirement to achieve the Bachelor degree in Civil and Environmental Department, Engineering Faculty, Gadjah Mada University. 2 Student of Civil Engineering and Environmental Department, Engineering Faculty, Gadjah Mada University with the student number of 06/1938358/TK/31658

1|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

1. Introduction
1.1. Offshore Pipelines Review
Offshore pipelines are generally applied worldwide for transporting gas and oil. Increasing of offshore works due to world energy demand further stimulate to the use of offshore pipelines. In Europe, the natural gas market is changing rapidly. Markets are opening up and demand is rising in all of the Europe, providing a basis for interconnections between gas markets. Europe is importing gas at a growing rate: from one-third now to twothirds by 2020 /21/. One offshore pipeline crossing North Sea lies between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It has a 36 inch Outer Diameter and total length of approximately 235 km. This pipeline has a vital function in transporting gas. It is in operation since 1 November 2006 and supplies 15% of the UK gas demand. The North Sea is a shallow sea which has a dynamic seabed characteristic in some parts. The seabed materials together with the sea conditions generate sediment migration. Active sediment migration will result in a dynamic seabed form. When a pipeline is laid on the seabed, the process of pipeline - seabed interaction starts. Often placement of an offshore pipeline in the dynamic seabed is avoided due to consideration that it can influence the stability even damage of the pipeline. Notwithstanding, some part of the pipeline had to cross an area which is known very dynamic in the sediment migration. Due to its vital role in the energy transport and probability of environmental impact in case of incidents, pipelines need to be monitored and maintained. As part of maintenance, the pipeline has annual survey to monitoring its condition. The pipeline has been surveyed in January 2008 and May 2009. After analysis and assessment were conducted, the May 2009 survey is resulted in the decision that immediate span correction was not required in 2009. The 2010 survey has been recently carried out and the result is now being analyzed. As a part of pipeline integrity management, an action plan is prepared to anticipate future problems as the pipe lies in dynamic seabed. The pipeline needs to be protected from damage caused by exposures and free spans. Three different remediation methods are being considered: Dumping sand dredged from nearby the pipeline, Dumping gravel dredged from existing licensed borrow areas, Dumping rock dredged from a borrow areas. Each method will perform differently and will have different results and impacts; therefore further study is required to find the most appropriate remediation method to solve the problem. Following aim of the study case project, the objective of this final thesis is to develop a tool to assist in choosing the appropriate method to remediate the pipelines problem using multi criteria evaluation. Multi criteria evaluation is considered to be a useful tool to guide decision making process. In other side, multi criteria evaluation also has shortcomings in which this tool can be subjectively used. Thus, every criteria and parameter should be set up clearly. Furthermore this tool will provide recommendations of which method or combination of methods should be chosen.

2|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

1.2.

Main Research Questions

How to evaluate the alternatives of methods to remediate offshore pipeline problems (free span and exposure in shipping lanes) and what is the appropriate method to overcome the problem of the offshore study case pipeline?

1.3.

Objective

To develop a tool to support decision making in choosing remediation method using Multi Criteria Evaluation and determine the most appropriate remediation method to remediate offshore pipeline problem in the offshore study case pipeline. Tool to support decision making A table and matrix which contain list of variables represents applicability of the remediation methods. Multi Criteria Evaluation A method which is able to see a problem from several point of views and derive it into criteria to be considered in choosing the solution. Appropriate remediation method A remediation method which is complies with the assessment criteria. Offshore pipeline problem The problem was identified as pipeline exposure in shipping lanes and free spans in a dynamic seabed. Offshore study case pipeline The study case is about a gas pipeline lies in North Sea connecting the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

2. Offshore Pipeline in Dynamic Seabed

Pipelines condition which falls outside pipelines required condition called pipeline anomaly. Ideally, pipelines should be protected from any conditions that might lead to potential damage of the pipeline; in this circumstance the pipelines should be supported and unexposed. The decision whether an offshore pipeline problem should be corrected or not, involve many factors and needs thorough analysis.

2.1. Environmental Conditions

Lies on the sea, a pipeline is dependent and highly affected by the sea and seabed conditions. One of the affecting conditions is the sediment transport. Sediment transport is the movement of solid particles (sediment), typically due to a combination of the force of gravity acting on the sediment, and/or the movement of the fluid in which the sediment is entrained /22/. There are three main elements of environmental condition which influence the offshore sediment transport: soil conditions, hydrodynamics and bed forms.
2.1.1. Soil Conditions

The soil conditions determine the possibility of erosion and sedimentation occurs. There are two types of sediment, non-cohesive sediment (rock, gravel and sand) and cohesive sediment (silt and clay). Later on, the discussion is focused on non-cohesive sediment.

3|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

2.1.2.

Hydrodynamics

When the seabed consists of non-cohesive sediment particles, mechanical forces dominate the behavior of the sediment. The mechanical forces are derived from hydraulic forces caused by current and wave-action. Required sea-state data are water level, current and wave data.
2.1.3. Bedforms

The bed of shallow seas such as the North Sea is not entirely flat. In many areas, various bedforms occur (Knaapen et al., 2001). Bedforms occur as an interaction between hydrodynamics and soil conditions. Generally in the area where the seabed consists of fine sediment, seabed material will be transported easily from one place to another causing a dynamic seabed. Table 2.1 summarizes the characteristics of several bedforms in sandy beds.
Table 2.1 Characteristics of Several Bedforms in Sandy area (Dodd et al., 2003; Knaapen et al.,2001 and Hulscher,1996 in R. Morelissen et al., 2003)

Bedforms

Ripples Mega-ripples Sand waves Long bed waves Tidal Sandbanks

Wave Amplitude Time Length Scales L (m) A (m) T instant flow ~ 1 ~ 0.01 H storm surges Tide Unknown Tide ~ 10 ~ 500 ~ 1500 ~ 5000 ~ 0.1 ~5 ~5 ~ 10 days years unknown century

Related Flow

Order of magnitude of the migration rate c ~ 1 m/day ~ 100 m/year ~ 10 m/year Unknown ~ 1 m/year

One of the sea bedform types is sand wave. Sand waves are offshore rhythmic features with the crest roughly perpendicular to the principal tidal direction. Sand waves migration results in large variations of seabed level in time. As a result, pipelines crossing sand wave areas can generate free spans. This may lead to high stresses, vibrations resulting in fatigue; endanger pipeline integrity (R Morelissen et al., 2003). Therefore sand waves are considered to be harmful for the crossing offshore pipeline.

2.2.

Pipeline Problems

There are two types of the anomaly conditions that potentially affect pipelines stability, free span and exposed pipelines. Although offshore pipes are designed with certain ability to deal with the free span, ideally pipeline should lay in or on the seabed in order to get support at the bottom of the pipe. Exposed pipelines in the shipping lane should also be avoided because it might endanger the pipe in relation with external hazard, such as ship anchoring, ship foundering, etc.
2.2.1. Exposed Pipeline in Shipping Lanes

The first problem to be faced by a pipeline due to sea- and seabed condition is pipeline exposures. In design phase, pipeline crossing shipping lanes usually buried under seabed or covered by such protections. In relation with seabed migration, pipeline can be exposed after certain period of time.
4|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

2.2.2.

Free spans

Free span in the pipeline is defined as a gap between the pipe and the supporting seabed. The free span is a further development of the pipeline exposures. An exposed pipeline forms an obstruction in the flow that causes additional flow increase and turbulence. This will lead to erosion besides the pipe (Bijker, R., 2006) /2/.
Scouring as part of free span development

A free span is a result of local erosion under the pipe. Differences in velocity or in turbulence or both can difference amount of transported sediment. When the seabed consists of fine sediments, it will generate local sediment transport below the pipe called piping. Further the piping develops in size and erodes at some distance and length of the pipe. In some cases the free span can be harmless if it is recognized as part of the pipeline self lowering process. Self-lowering is a natural process for an offshore pipeline and has dynamic character in time. The development of free span as part of self-lowering process can be identified by free span that located in a trench.
Vortex Induced Vibration (VIV)

Vortex shedding is known to occur in the flow around a cylinder. As vortices are shed, a periodic force is exerted on the body. If the body is mounted elastically, and its mass and damping of the system are relatively small, these forces may induce vibrations on the body, if resonant conditions occur. This means if the vortex-shedding frequency approaches one of the natural frequencies of the body /20/. VIV analysis result a fatigue life3 of the pipeline.
Shipping Lanes and Fishing Area

Free span with height of 0.6-0.8 of pipelines diameter is harmful if it is located in the shipping lanes and or fishing area. This is due to the possibility of vessels anchoring or fishing gear crossing and getting stuck at the free span. This condition is risky both for the ship and the pipe. If the pipeline strong enough, the ship might capsize while the ship pulling the anchor or the fishing gear. In other hand, pulling force of the ship might cause damaged to the pipe.
Pipeline Breaking

This hazard might happen if the pipeline is located in relatively static environment and the condition of free span is exceeding allowable span height and length.

3.

Offshore Pipeline Remediation Methods

The main function of the remediation is to correct the anomaly condition and avoid further development of the problems. If the study results in a decision to conduct a remediation action, the remediation method should be chosen carefully.

Fatigue life is defined as the same period of operation after which the failure probability of the pipeline exceeds 10-4/year.
5|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

There are three existing remediation methods alternatives; (1) pipe lowering (reburial), (2) adding material on top of the pipe (material dumping), and (3) artificial stabilization.

3.1.

Pipeline lowering (re-burial)

Pipeline lowering is commonly used to protect the pipe by locating the pipe in stable seabed depth. The sediment transport process will let the seabed naturally back filled and gives sufficient protection height along the pipe. Placing the pipe in the stable sea-bed depth is needed to avoid further self-lowering. Hereafter re-burial becomes one of the solutions to correct free span and pipeline exposures problems. This method gives advantage which able to achieve sufficient protection height and stability for long section of the pipe. Pipeline lowering needs certain machine. There are three kinds of pipeline lowering methods, which can be distinguished on the working methods of the machine. The pipeline lowering methods are: Trenching, Ploughing, Jetting.

3.2.

Material Dumping

Providing additional cover tends to be a safer solution for an operating pipe. Protection of the backfill material is lead to different approaches. A protection can be a deterministic approach or probabilistic approach (Bijker, Moshagen, 1994) /5/. The deterministic approach results in a single d50 for given environmental conditions and allowing no movement of the material. This approach avoids the remediation method failing to protect the pipeline in certain design period. This approach will thus, result in a relatively static protection. The probabilistic approach calculates the expected loss of the material for a given environmental regime. This approach accepts maintenance of the backfill as a consideration pipe located on dynamic condition. Below are the materials which commonly use to protect the pipe: Cover of sand; Cover of gravel; Cover of rock.

3.3.

Artificial Stabilization

Another remediation method is artificial stabilization. This method is devoted to overcome the free span problem by filling the free span with artificial stabilization material. This method is proper to used in relatively static sea- and seabed condition. Under the stable condition, the protection expected able to give endurance and longer protection time. Artificial stabilizations that commonly used are: Sand bags, Grout bags, Pipe supports.

6|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

Problem Identification: Start

Pipelineexposure freespansinshippinglanes

Soil Soft Seabed Dynamic Seabed Input Data Hydrodynami c Condition Hard Seabed Static Seabed

Seabed form Types

Non-sand wave area

Sand wave area

Alternative Solutions

Pipeline Burial Material Dumping

Material Dumping

Pipeline Lowering Artificial Stability Material Dumping

Multi Criteria Evaluation

Engineering Aspect:
Stability NauticalSafety Maintenance

Environmental Aspect:
Ecology Morphology Environmental Policy

Cost Aspect:
Material Equipment Maintenance

Decision Making T l

Value Value CostRatio

Cost

Finish
Figure 3.1 - Remediation Action

Recommendationofthemethod

7|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

4. Offshore Pipeline Remediation Project (Study Case)

This chapter will discuss the offshore study case pipeline and provides the useful data that will be used for further analysis. Most of the data are gathered from /22/. The document is originally made to provide information with which it is possible to give environmental considerations for the decision making process.

4.1.

Introduction of the Study Case Pipeline

An offshore pipeline crossing North Sea lies between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It has a 36 inch Outer Diameter, a design pressure of 137.4 bar, a maximum design temperature of 50C and total length of approximately 235 km. This pipeline has a vital function of exports gas and supplies gas demand. The capacity is around 42 million cubic meters of gas a day. The pipeline is in operation since 1 November 2006 and supplies 15% of UK energy. The pipeline was designed with a system of carbon steel, internally and externally coated with anti-corrosion coating. The offshore sections are lined externally with a concrete coating. The cathodic protection against steel corrosion designed to meet 50 years design life. The 235 km pipeline in general is divided into three sections; Bacton section (UK section), offshore section and Balgzand section (Netherlands section). The pipeline sections are expressed in KP4 number /10/. The offshore activities near the study case pipeline are one of the considerations of potential external hazard to the pipeline. There are three offshore activities take into account; (1) shipping, (2) fishing and (3) cables and pipelines.

4.2.

Environmental Condition

4.2.1. Soil Condition The soil conditions along the offshore section vary between fines until gravely sand. The route does neither cross any gravel banks nor significantly wide clay areas. Most of the seabed at the Netherlands offshore section consists of medium sand, while the seabed at the United Kingdom offshore section consists of medium sand and sandy gravel. The seabed on the offshore section has D50 in range of 0.15-0.4 mm. 4.2.2. Hydrodynamics Hydrodynamic condition along the pipeline route has been assessed as requirement data to design the pipeline. Apart from the hydrodynamics study for the pipeline design, there is a wave and current study regarding self-lowering and spoiler assessment /22/. For this study, wave and currents data have been derived from an offshore platform (K13).

4 KP refers to Kilometer Post. It is the instrument in Kilometers along the pipeline from a specified reference location on the Dutch coast. The location designated First is situated at 52 52 51, 28 N, 004 43 05.19 E. The KP measurement at location First is -0.08 km.

8|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

4.2.2.1. Water Level

The time series data of sea water level derived in KP 114. The data is hourly observation conducted in one year. Wave data gained from KP114 are wave velocity, direction and sea water level. The reference level of the sea water level is LAT (Lowest Astronomical Tide). The range of tide later on will be an input of the stability program (SED-TUBE and BPS). The list given below is the data summarization of sea water level observation. MSL = 22.70 m. HHWL= 23.52 m. LLWL = 21.93 m.
4.2.2.2. Waves

The time series data of waves are derived from KP 115.3. The data obtained from six months observations which are recorded every three hours. The data includes wave height, wave period and wave direction. The following is the result of wave observation in half year period. (Hs)5 = 2.3 meter T = 7.6 second
4.2.2.1. Current

The dominant current direction and current magnitude for every KP is resulting in a tidal current6.
4.2.3. Bedforms

The seabed along the route is generally smooth undulating with several bedforms such as sand banks, sand waves and mega-ripples. None of the sand banks along the routes are drying at low tide. The shallowest sand banks crossings are Smith Knoll (depth of 23.1 meter) at KP 173.2 and Hearty Knoll (depth of 14 m) at KP 180.5 /20/. Main concern of the dynamic sea-bed along the study case pipeline is sand wave seabed. The sand wave is spreading along the pipeline with particular characteristic. Sand wave located in KP 185 KP 191 is considered very dynamic and has extreme irregular feature. Thus, more attention needs to be given to the sand wave area in this location.
Free Span Study Case

To focus the discussion of the study, analysis of the remediation method will be addressed on two specific free spans; those are located in a relatively stable seabed and in the sand wave area. Span near KP 144 and KP 185 chosen to be the study case that represent the conditions. The data of span near KP 144 will be used as the input of the stability calculation while span in sand wave area will be used to modeling the berm protection using Fledermaus program.

5 Significant wave height (Hs) is approximately the average height of the highest one third of the waves in a sample. 6 Tidal currents are rotary; a water particle follows the path of rough ellipse during one complete tidal cycle.

9|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

4.2.3.1.

Free Span near KP 144

Figure 4.1 Study Case Span near KP 144

4.2.3.2.

Free Span near KP 185

Figure 4.2 Study Case Span in Sand Wave Area

4.3.

Identify Remediation Option

Firstly, three main remediation methods are identified. Identification follows remediation action flow chart (figure 3.1). Pipeline lowering is considered not a viable option to apply due to the risk for the operating pipeline. Moreover the seabed conditions, especially in sand wave area will result in difficult execution work due to the large variation in burial depth in short distances. The artificial free span stabilization is also not proper to be applied to solve the problem, considering the free span is changing time to time and the method cannot remediate the exposed section. Moreover the seabed where the pipeline lies consists of fine sand. The use of artificial stabilization will induce scouring besides the protection and other new problem might occur. It is likely that the remediation method by dumping material is the most proper option to correct the problem. Three types of material dumping methods are identified to solve the problem (part 2.2). The remediation options are: Dumping sand dredged from nearby the pipeline. The sand will be dredged in corridor of 100 meter from the pipe. Thus, the material properties of berm and seabed will be the same (D50=400 m). Dumping gravel dredged from existing licensed borrow areas. Gravel material properties should be proposed by the contractor and are taken from a borrow area. Dumping rock. Berm consisted of coarse core material (1-8) and cover material (13) and taken from a borrow area. Berm design has been established in the pipeline intervention work proposal. A set of new berm dimensions is made following some considerations, resulting bellow dimensions:

10|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

Table 4.1 - Berm Dimension

Berm Dimension Properties Cover on TOP (m) Crest width (m) Side slopes of berm slope crest perpendicular to the pipeline slope crest along the pipeline
7

BermMaterial Sand design minimum design minimum 1 0.6 30 20 1:10 horizontal following pipeline Gravel 0.8 0.6 15 10 1:5 horizontal following pipeline Rock 0.6 0.6 5 5 1:3 horizontal following pipeline

Minimum cover height follows minimum safety height requirement of the Dutch shipping lanes area. Below figure is an example of sand berm model in sand wave area of KP 185.629KP 185.656.

Figure 4.3 Sand Berm Model in Sand Wave Area

TOP: Top of pipe is the reference to design the berm

11|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

5.
5.1.

M Multi Crite eria Evalu uation

In ntroductio on
Step p1:EstablishDecision Context
Defineproblem o solution Definerequirementof DefinegoalsofMCE

Step2: 2 Identifyth heOptions

Step3: :IdentifyObjectivesand Criteria

Identify ycriteriaforas ssesingconseq quencesofeachoption Organiz zethecriteria

Step4:Scor ring

Describ betheconsequ uencesoftheo options Scoret theoptionsonthecriteria

S 5:Weigh Step hting

Assignweightsforea achofthecriteriontoreflecttheir relative eimportancetothe decision

Step6: 6 CombineSc coringand Weighting

Calcula ateoverallweig ghtedscoresateachlevelinthe hierarchy ateoverallweig ghtedscores Calcula

Step7: 7 Examineth heResults

Conduc ctasensitivityanalysis:doot therpreferenc cesor weights saffecttheoverallorderingo oftheoptions? Lookat ttheadvantag geanddisadvan ntagesofselec cted options s,andcompare epairsofoptio ons Createpossiblenewoptions o thatmight m bebetter rthan o considered thoseoriginally

Step8:Sensitivity yAnalysis

5.2.

E Establish Criteria

In n this study, each remed diation metho od is assesse ed by three m main aspects; engineering g, environm ment and cos st. Each aspe ect will be s subdivided in nto several sub-aspects. Further eac ch sub-aspect has leadin ng questions and criteria to assist in the t scoring p process. re the aspect ts and sub-as spect for the analysis: Below ar A. Engineering E a. Stability b. Nautical Safety S . Maintenan nce c. B. Environment E d. Ecology ogy e. Morpholo
12 |A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e

f. Environmental Policy C. Cost g. Material h. Construction Works i. Maintenance Works

5.2.1. Engineering Aspect

Each method will give different performance in protecting the pipe. Division of the engineering aspect is derived by the pipeline problem issues. The engineering aspect will be further divided into three following sub aspects.
5.2.1.1. Stability

One objective of the remediation action is to ensure the stability of the pipeline. Different methods considered will provide different degrees of stability. Stability criteria measure the effectiveness of the protection in providing stability to the pipeline. To investigate the effectiveness of the protection, stability parameters should be set up. In this case, the stability degree is represented by the duration of the protection in protecting the pipe. Five years period is the boundary time of the calculation.
5.2.1.2. Nautical safety

Pipelines that cross the sea have to deal with other on sea activities. Increase of offshore activities nowadays increases the potential of pipelines risk in failure particularly for the pipelines that lay in or near the shipping lines. The protection provided should not only increase the safety of the pipeline but also shipping. Nautical safety has been established as a sub-aspect to conceive the safety degree provided by the protection both for the pipe and the ship. The scoring of the nautical safety sub-aspect will follow as explained below criteria. Questions: How effective the protection can protect the pipe from external marine hazard? Assessments Criteria: - Anchor or fish gear will passes over the pipe without any problem or will it penetrate into the protection; - Tolerable penetration condition refers to the condition that the pipe and the ship are still safe
5.2.1.3. Maintenance

Maintenance works are divided into two types; (1) maintenance of the protection and (2) structural maintenance in case needed. Maintenance is defined as a correction or repair action of the pipeline protection system that has to be carried out during expected protection time (assumed as five year period). In other words if within five year period the protection falls below the requirement, the corrective action should be repeated and considered as maintenance. The other type of maintenance is the pipe structural maintenance. The structural maintenance is maintenance that should be carried out in case the pipe is facing a structural problem. This maintenance can be carried out at any time, thus the measurement is based on
13|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

the protection influence level towards maintenance. The scoring of the structural maintenance will follow as explained below criteria. Questions: 1. Is removing the protection needed during the maintenance? 2. What method or machine is needed to remove the protection? Assessments Criteria: - The protection is not required to be removed or should first be removed before maintenance - The protection needs a special method or machine to remove the protection.
5.2.2. Environmental Aspect

The remediation action includes gravel and rock dumping (not the initial seabed material) and the material difference might give some impacts. This aspect emphasizes to choose the method that gives minimal impact to the environment, or the impact needed to be controlled. Impact to the environment separated during the construction phase and rest of pipe operation phase. Further the criteria that will be taken into account here is the remediation impact for ecology (flora and fauna) surrounding the pipeline and changes of seabed condition.
5.2.2.1. Ecology

Ecology is the science that deals with the mutual relations between living organisms and their relations with the environment. The activity of dredging and dumping as part of remediation action can affect the ecological balance in the area around the pipe. This subaspect is established to consider the effect of remediation actions on living organism around the project area. Questions: 1. How do the protections affect ecology? 2. How long is the duration of disturbance? 3. How wide is the area affected? 4. How long does the protections affect seabed? Assessments Criteria: The protection will result either in a critical or tolerable ecological problem The approximate duration of disturbance of ecology: short (<6 months) or long (>6months) Extent of disturbance of ecology reached minimum ecology distance Extent of changes in ecology is permanent or temporary
5.2.2.2. Morphology

Nature is dynamic as it always seeks some sort of equilibrium. Human intervention at some place will impact in other places as the result of nature balancing effort. This aspect focuses on the potential changes of the seabed as a result of the protection installation. Seabed will act differently by the use of different material. The criteria to access impact of morphology will follow /4/. Question: 1. How will the protections affect seabed?
14|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

2. How long is the duration of disturbance? 3. How wide is the area affected? 4. How long do the protections affect seabed? Assessments Criteria: The protection will result in a critical problem or tolerable The approximate duration of disturbance of the seabed: short (<6 months) or long (>6months) Extent of disturbance of seabed around the pipeline in corridor 25x25 meter Extent of changes in morphology is permanent or temporary
5.2.2.3. Environmental Policy

Pipelines are generally used to transport gas or oil for long distances. In most cases pipelines will cross more than one country which may have different legislation. This subaspect is to measure compatibility of each method with environmental policies. Question: How the protections comply with environment regulations in each sea territory? Assessments Criteria:
5.2.3. Theprotectionisinaccordanceorcontradicttheregulation Cost Aspect

Cost aspect will be calculated separately. Cost per alternative is determined by three main components. Total cost of the three components will be used for value-cost ratio. The three cost components are:
5.2.3.1. Material

Sand can be taken freely in a corridor of 100 meter within the pipe while gravel and rock should be taken from a borrow area. The layout of the dumped material cross section to give overview how much the material needed.
5.2.3.2. Construction Works

Construction works are including dredging and dumping. The cost of construction works depends on volume, type of equipment and sailing distance. The pipe location should be specified to determine the sailing distance.
5.2.3.3. Maintenance Works

The cost calculation of maintenance works consists of material and construction works. In this case, the amount of the material needs to be recalculated. Once cost of maintenance works available, total maintenance works for five years period can be calculated.

5.3.

Establish Scoring and Weighting

Scoring criteria should be set up to maintain the objectivity of the scoring. The scoring of the stability and the maintenance sub-aspect will be different with the other output data. This is because the stability criteria gives exact output data that can be converted directly into score, while the maintenance of the sub-aspect considers two type of

15|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

maintenance. The scoring of other five sub-aspects is defined after discussion by an expert experienced in offshore pipeline field (Ir. Romke Bijker).
5.3.1. Establish Scoring

Each sub-aspect besides the stability sub-aspect will use four ratings. Each level of rating represents a certain value. Positive ratings [++, +, +/-] will add to the score, while negative rating will subtract it. A [+/-] represents the average degree of appropriateness. Rating of a [+] or a [++] depends on the quality of the method. Any drawback of the method will be valued by a [-].
Table 5.1 - Scoring Criteria

Rating ++ + +/5.3.1.1. Stability

Value 5 3 1 -1

The stability scoring is dependent on the berm protection time. Protection time is defined as the period of time start from the construction work until the berm reach minimum safety height of Dutch territory area. The stability score can directly be obtained by drawing vertical line from the protection time (x-axis) until touch the linear line of the relationship between the score and the protection time.

StabilityScoring
5 4 Score 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5

ProtectibilityTime(Year)
Figure 5.1 Stability Scoring Scale

5.3.1.2. Nautical Safety

++ +

+/

Give total protection both for the pipe and for the ship in five year period. Decreasing performance of the protection is tolerable, as long as the protection still able to give sufficient protection both for the pipe and for the ship. Protection time is less than five year period. Protection able to protect both for the pipe and the ship intermittently/occasionally.
Notgivesufficientprotectionbothforpipeandship.

16|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

5.3.1.3. Maintenance

5.3.1.3.1. Protection Maintenance The graphic below is based on assumption of the maintenance frequency: more than six maintenance in one year rated as [-], the maintenance with frequency in range of 2 months up to half year rated as [+/-], the maintenance with frequency more than half year up to five years rated as [+] and the maintenance with the frequency of five year or more rated [++]. The use of the graphic, simply do a plotting of the protection time at x-axis and the number of maintenance in y-axis. Where the meeting point of these two parameters falls represent the rating. The graph can also be up-scaled by proportionally extending the lines and axis.

Figure 5.2 Protection Maintenance Value

5.3.1.3.2. Structural Maintenance ++ Easy to do maintenance, no need to remove protection. + Easy to do maintenance, no need specific machine to remove protection. +/Moderate to do maintenance, need specific machine to remove protection.
Difficulttodomaintenance,needspecificmachinetoremoveprotection.

5.3.1.4. Ecology

++ + +/++ + +/++ + +/-

Protection will not affect any ecological balance. Protection will affect ecological surround area less than requirement limits. Protection will affect ecological surround area in requirement limits corridor. Protection will disturb ecological balance. Protection will not cause any seabed changes. Protection will cause seabed changes but less than requirement limits. Protection will cause seabed changes in requirement limits corridor. Protection will disturb seabed balance. Protection strongly supports environmental policy in every area. Protection support environmental policy in some area. Protection comply with environmental policy in some area and should be specific to get the permit.
17|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

5.3.1.5. Seabed Changes

5.3.1.6. Environmental Policy

Protection contradicts with environmental policy.

5.3.2. Establish Weighting

Weight factors are given to each sub-aspect in order to determine the importance of one sub-aspect relative to another and rank influence of one sub-aspect to overall sub-aspect. The weighting method in this analysis will follow pairwise comparison developed by Satty. The pairwise comparison method requires comparing all categories of impact with one another, indicating which of the pair is believed to be more important, and by how much /15/. The given of weight factors can be different and may depend on the users opinion, thus the weighting is a subjective aspect of multi criteria evaluation. The following points are used for guiding the rationalization process:
5.3.2.1. Leading Statement

Leading statement is established to assist the potential relation issue of a sub-aspect. Leading statement will present specific condition of one sub-aspect. For example to understand the influence of the stability, the leading statement for the stability criterion is the type of material (and dimensions) of the protection berm.
5.3.2.2. Consequences Statement

A set of consequences is provided as answers of the leading statements. For example to understand how much stability is affecting nautical safety, the consequences statement is affecting shipping and fisheries issues. By gathering leading and consequences statements, the respondent expected to be able to give the score. For example, the statements become: Is the type of material (and dimensions) of the protection berm affecting shipping and fisheries safety issues?
5.3.2.3. Weight factor

The weighting of a criterion is done by giving scores in ranges 0 until 1. Giving score of 1 means that a criterion strongly influences other criterion and reflects an opinion of the pair of statements. If the sub-aspect is considered to have no effect to another subaspect, the pair of statements is unrelated and thus 0.
5.3.2.4. Weight Matrix

The scores from the weighting table will be transferred to the weighting matrix. The score of each sub-aspect will be compared with the overall total score. The output of the weighting matrix is the weight factor.

6. Application Multi Criteria Evaluation in Study Case Pipeline

6.1. Apply Scoring and Weighting
6.2.1. WeightFactor

First set of weight factor is the actual weight factor (wf1) that used for the Multi Criteria Evaluation. The weight factor has been set-up after several discussions with Mr. Romke Bijker.

18|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

Table 6.1 Implementation of weighting in the study case (wf1)

Environment Policy

Nautical Safety

Weight Factor Stability

Stability Nautical Safety Maintenance Ecology Morphology

1 0.5 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.2 1 0 1 0.2 1 0.5 1 0.5

0 0 0.5 1 0.5

3.5 2 4.5 2.2 2.7 4

19 11 24 12 14 21

Environment Policy 1 Total

18.9 100

Maintenance tends to be the most affecting sub-aspect. Maintenance of the protection is able to increase the stability and safety degree, while maintenance work may directly affect environmental issues (ecology and morphology). Maintenance works are influenced by also environmental policy.
6.2.2. Scoring

The scoring of each sub-aspect for every remediation method is summarized in below table. The explanation of the reason for giving score of each sub-aspect will be described further in this part.
Table 6.2 Scoring of the Remediation Method

Material Dumping No a b c d e f Criteria Stability Nautical Safety Maintenance Ecology Sea-bed changes Environment Policy Sand Rating 0.08 +/2 ++ ++ ++ Value 0.08 1 2 5 5 5 Gravel Rating 2.5 + 3 + +/+ Value 2.5 3 3 3 1 3 Rock Rating 5 ++ 2 + Value 5 5 2 3 -1 -1

6.2.2.1. Stability

The stability study is carried out by the use of two computation programs, SEDTUBE and Bottom Protection System (BPS)9. Both programs are excel programs. The study is conducted in the study case free span near KP 144. The explanation of the free span study case together with the input data for stability calculation refers to chapter 4.
8

SED-TUBE is an excel program that is able to compute and model sediment transport as a function of time in trenches and over berms. SEDTUBE is developed by Prof. Leo van Rijn. 9 BPS (Bottom Protection System) is an excel program that is able to compute d50 of the material for which the protection will be stable during given condition. BPS is developed by Ir. Romke Bijker.

19|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

Weight Factor

Morphologygy

Maintenance

Ecology

Total

Below is an output of SED-TUBE result for a sand berm. It is assumed that sand is taken from the sand wave area within corridor 100 meter on either side of the pipe.
37.5 38 WaterDepth 38.5 39

SandBermDevelopmentusingD50=400
Initial Berm 1 month 6 month 500 550 600 650 Distance 700 750 800 850 900

39.5 40

Figure 6.1 Sand berm development (D50=400)

Figure 6.1 shows that in 1 month the berm erodes 50 cm in height and the centre of the berm shifts 5 meter to the right side. The shift happens due to the daily asymmetric tidal cycle consists of flood and ebb phases with opposite flow directions. After one month the berm already reaches the height requirement of the Dutch shipping lanes area. In the stability criteria in chapter 5, the scoring of the stability follows the stability scoring scale (figure 5.3). Simply by drawing a line from the x-axis intersect the linear graph line and draw the other line to the y-axis. In this case because the scales of both axes are equal, the stability scoring able to be calculated manually by convert the protection time unit (in month) into year. 1 month is equal with 0.08 year, thus the stability score for the dumping sand method is 0.08. Determination of the rock berm protection follows deterministic approach. Rock berm designed to be stable in five year period. The rock dimension will be computed using the BPS program and resulting D50 dimension for completely stable protection. The stability of the gravel is assumed 2.5 years. The assumption was done because dumping gravel is a method in between deterministic and probabilistic approach. Although the gravel berm is expected to be stable in five year period, decreases of berm height is tolerable until reaches the minimal height requirement of the Dutch shipping area. The loss of berm material under the sea extreme condition has been taken into account, thus the berm protection time is set half of the rock protection period. The gravel berm development has been investigated with the SEDTUBE program and resulting the material dimension (d50).
6.2.2.2. Maintenance

According to the scoring criteria in chapter 5, there are two types of maintenance, protection maintenance and structural maintenance of the pipe. Average value of both maintenances gives the maintenance value. Protection maintenance value is obtained from the maintenance graphic (Figure 5.4). According to the stability study, dumping with sand needs monthly maintenance. Gravel expected to be stable in 2.5 year period, thus in five year period two maintenances should be carried out. Maintenance of the rock protection is maximal once in five year period. After plotted in the maintenance graphic the sand berm rates [-], the gravel berm rates [+] and the rock berm rates [++].
20|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

The pipe structural maintenance measures the ease level of the protections, if a structural maintenance should be carried out. Based on Emden pipeline remediation case, the rock berm removal needed special machine10. Both type of berm able to be removed using a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger machine. The sand berm is considered gives minimal removal work, whereas gravel berm needed more effort to be removed. Thus rating of sand is [++], gravel is [+] while rock is [-]. Table 6.3 shows the combines score for both maintenance types.
Table 6.3 Total Maintenance Scoring

Maintenance Protection Maintenance Structural Maintenance Final Value

Sand rating ++ 2 value -1 5

Gravel rating + + 3 value 3 3

Rock rating ++ 2 value 5 -1

6.3.

Combine Weighting and Scoring

Table 6.4 Implementation of Scoring in the Study Case Pipeline (wf1)

The implementation of weighting and scoring resulted in the table thereinafter.

Material Dumping No a b c d e f Criteria weight factor 19 11 24 12 14 21 Sand Rating Stability Nautical Safety Maintenance Ecology Sea-bed changes Environment Policy Total 0.08 +/2 ++ ++ ++ 295 Score 1.5 11 48 58 71 106 Gravel Rating 2.5 + 3 + +/+ 262 Score 46 32 71 35 14 63 Rock Rating 5 ++ 2 + 169 Score 93 53 48 12 -14 -21

The use of sand as the material dumping has the highest score (value of 295). Second remediation method is dumping gravel with a score of 262. The differences between both remediation methods are not very big. Dumping rock has the lowest score of 169. The differences between the scores are quite big for the rock dumping.

6.4.

Sensitivity Analysis

Different weight factor sets are applied to see if the total scores fluctuate much with different weight factors. The first set carried out considering the sub-aspect has the equal importance and correlated one another (wf0); the second followed the weight factor where environmental issue (wf2) takes lead of the overall weight factor; the third weight factor set up where the engineering aspect take lead (wf3). Every environmental sub-aspect in the wf2 has twice weight factor and vice versa for the wf3.

10

The rock berm of Emden pipeline has been removed by airlifting machine.

21|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

The graphic thereinafter compiles the total value for weight factor 0, 2 and 3. The graphics are established to give trend relation of weight factors for every sub-aspect and the total value.

SensitivityAnalysisTowardsEnvironmental Aspect 400

TotalValue 300 200 100 0 10 15 20 Subaspectweightfactor 25 Sand Gravel Rock

Figure 6.2 Relation between the environmental sub-aspects weight factor and total value

The sensitivity analysis towards environmental aspects shows that dumping sand is a sensitive remediation method with the increases of environmental sub-aspect weight factor. Vice versa, the increasing of environmental sub-aspects weight factor will slightly decreases the total value for dumping gravel and rather significant value for dumping rock. The same study has conducted to the engineering sub-aspects.

400 TotalValue 300 200 100 0

SensitivityAnalysisTowardsEngineering Aspect

Sand Gravel Rock 10 15 20 Subaspectweightfactor 25

Figure 6.3 Relation Between the Engineering Sub-aspects Weight Factor and Total Value

The sensitivity analysis towards engineering aspect is in reverse of the environmental aspect. The increasing of engineering sub aspects weight factor will slightly increase the total value for dumping gravel and significantly increase the total value of dumping rock, on the contrary the total value of dumping sand will significantly decreases. From the above sensitivity analysis, it can be concludes that the sand and rock dumping are more dependent and sensitive with the changes of environmental and engineering sub-aspects weight factors. The gravel dumping is less dependent and will increase along the increases of engineering sub-aspects weight factors.

22|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

6.5.

Cost Estimation

Before calculate the cost, specific areas of the pipe that need to be dumped should be determined. The list of free spans in sand wave area has been selected based on the length and the height gap. The spans which have length more than 10 meter and height gap more than 0.3 meter will be remediated. For the exposed pipeline in shipping lines, the simplification of 38% exposure in the UK shipping lanes are used to calculate the volume of material dumping.
6.5.1. Material

The sand assumed taken from 100 meter along the pipeline can be taken freely. The gravel and the rock will be dredged at a specific location or taken from specific land area. Material price for the gravel and rock following the specific document /11/ is 3.39 /m3 for gravel and 9.1 /m3 for rock.
6.5.2. Construction Works

Generally, construction of the berm includes three main following activities: Mobilization vessel Installation of the berm Demobilization vessel
6.5.3. Maintenance Works

The cost of maintenance works are consisted of material and construction cost. For the maintenance work, a set of assumption is established as a future prediction.
6.5.4. Total Cost in Five Year Period
Table 6.5 Total Cost in Five Year Period

Total cost of five year period total cost of the material, construction and maintenance.
Activity Remediation Material Construction Maintenance Total 0 1,899,851 43,194,780 45,094,631 1,094,970 2,083,449 1,366,155 4,544,574 1,147,510 4,447,746 0 5,595,256 Cost () Sand Gravel Rock

6.6.

Most Appropriate Method

The most appropriate method follows from the MCE. As the cost is one of the criteria, the highest value-cost ratio considered as the most appropriate method. The total value from table 6.4 is divided by the total cost in five year period from table 6.5. The alternative with the highest value-cost ratio is the most appropriate method.
Table 6.8 Value - Cost Ratio

Value - Cost Ratio Value Cost (M) Final Value Ranking (max=10)

Sand 295 45.09 6.55 1.13

Gravel 262 4.54 57.69 10

Rock 169 5.60 30.26 5.25

23|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1. Conclusions

The tool is suitable for other pipeline remediation cases that deal with similar issues as the study case pipeline (pipeline exposures and free spans) to support the evaluating of remediation alternatives; nevertheless any changes due to problem adjustment are allowed and supported. The most appropriate remediation method is the one giving the highest valuecost ratio. High value represents the benefit of the method from the engineering and environmental point of view, whereas low cost represents lowest cost that should be paid to execute the method. Successful consideration of these three aspects (engineering, environmental and cost), will lead to an integrated assessment approach for the pipeline remediation action. This tool will be able to support the decision making process and will contribute to more effective pipeline integrity management. The implementation of the tool in the study case pipeline results in the recommendation of gravel dumping as the most appropriate method to overcome the study case pipeline problems. As an intermediate method, the gavel dumping method has the second highest value. The rather small value differences compared with the highest value method (dumping sand) demonstrate the competitive benefit of the gravel dumping method. Moreover, the cost calculation indicates the gravel dumping method as the lowest cost method with significant cost difference in comparison with the sand dumping method. The consideration of value-cost ratio clarifies the use of gravel dumping method to be the highest ranked option with a large ranking difference.

7.2.

Recommendations

It is recommended to perform more specific studies of the influence of the pipeline remediation methods to each sub-aspect in the MCE. The sub-aspects of nautical safety, morphology and environmental safety have been judged by professional judgments together with supporting data. In general the data are sufficiently available; nevertheless more study and (if possible) modeling will improve the basis of scoring and weighting. Another essential consideration is due to the stability and cost calculation. The stability calculation should be improved to approach the real condition while a more detail calculation of the cost will improve the reliability of the analysis. The MCE is a relatively sensitive tool for changes in the mathematical algorithms (scoring and weighting) which are combined. It is recommended to invite relevant parties to participate in the weighting process in order to improve the quality of actual weight factors. Moreover, the use of more than one set of weight factor and a sensitivity analysis will improve the decision making process. Furthermore, further development in the MCE system for example additional of the criteria is recommended.

24|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods

References
Literature Sources /1/ American Geophysical Union, 1995, Chapter 7 Sediment Properties. /2/ Bijker, R., 2006, Design Aspects of Submerged Protection Systems of Offshore Infrastructure. /3/ Bijker, Chen, Spiekhout, 1995, Crossing the Eems With a 42 Gas Pipeline /4/ Bijker, Chen, Moshagen, 1993, Morphology and Pipeline Design Through a Tidal Inlet. /5/ Bijker, Moshagen, 1994, Europipe Pipeline Shore Approach Environmental Design Basis.pdf /6/ Bijker, Van Foeken, Van der Paal, Staub, 1991, Pipeline-Sand Wave Interaction /7/ Choi, H.S., Free Spanning Analysis of Offshore Pipelines /8/ Department for Communities and Local Government, 2009, Multi-Criteria Analysis: a Manual, London. /9/ Groenewegen, P.J.J., 2006, Masterplan for the Port of the Azzawiya Oil Refining Company Inc., Libya. /10/ PhysE, 2005, Metoceann Criteria for the BBL Balgzand-Bacton Pipeline /11/ Intern,2009, Pipeline Remedial Work Tender Document /12/ Morelissen et al.,2003, Mathematical Modeling of Sand Wave Migration and the Interaction with Pipelines. /13/ Neunaber, Marina, 2009, Bachelor Final Thesis: Fish Migration Route at the Pumping Station Kralings Plas. /14/ Novalia, Wikke, 2009, Research Report: Selection Guide of Simple Drinking Water Treatment Technology for Small Community in Develop Country. /15/ Raaijmakers, R.J.J., 2006, A spatial multi criteria analysis methodology for the development of sustainable flood risk management in the Ebro Delta. /16/ Schiereck, Gerrit J., 2001, Introduction Bed, bank and shore protection, the Netherlands, Delft University Press. /17/ Total Professeur Associes Courses, 2009, Offshore Pipelines, Yogyakarta. /18/ Triatmodjo, B., 1992, Teknik Pantai, Yogyakarta, Beta Offset. /19/ Witteveen+Bos, 2010, Pipeline Integrity Report. /20/ Witteveen+Bos, 2009, Pipeline Integrity Management and Free spans. /21/ Witteveen+Bos, 2006, Pipeline Installation in Sand Wave Area. /22/ Witteveen+Bos/Mott Mac Donald, 2004, Environmental Statement Complete Project Study Case Pipeline. Internet Sources /23/ http://en.wikipedia.org/ /24/ http://www.hbo-kennisbank.nl/ /25/ http://www.vanoord.com/

25|A n a l y s i s o f O f f s h o r e P i p e l i n e RemediationMethods