Best Practice

SABP-L-001 28 January 2007

Wall Thickness Selection
of Transportation Pipelines
Piping Standards Committee Members
Nasri, Nadhir Ibrahim, Chairman
Dib, Tony Georges, Vice Chairman
Balhareth, Nasser Mohammad
Khashab, Jaafar M.
Mullen, Marshall Anson
Bannai, Nabeel Saad
Qahtani, Khalid Daifallah
Rumaih, Abdullah Mohammad
Lewis, Trevor
Dossary, Mohammad Battal
Holland, Brad John
Teraiki, Abdullah Mohammad
Kim, Steve Un
Fadley, Gary Lowell
Otaibi, Bander Abdulaziz
Ramadan, Mousa Sadiq
Phan, Howard Cong
Mahmoud, Khalid Ahmed

Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards

Table of Contents

1 Introduction.................................................... 2
2 Conflicts with Mandatory Standards.............. 2
3 References.................................................... 2
4 General.......................................................... 2
5 Pipeline Wall Thickness for
the Internal Design Pressure.................. 3
6 Corrosion Allowance and Mill Tolerance........ 5
7 Traffic and Soil Loads over Buried Pipeline... 5
8 Typical Mistakes in
Wall Thickness Selection....................... 6

Previous Issue: New Next Planned Update: 28 January 2012

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the right margin Page 1 of 6
Primary contact: Muslim, Husain Muhammad on 966-3-8736840

Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2007. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SABP-L-001
Issue Date: 28 January 2007 Wall Thickness Selection
Next Planned Update: 28 January 2012 of Transportation Pipelines

1 Introduction

This Best Practice is intended as general guidelines to be followed during the

development of any project to determine the proper required wall thickness of a pipe in
accordance to ASME B31.4 & ASME B31.8 and Saudi Aramco Engineering
Requirements.

2 Conflicts with Mandatory Standards

In the event of a conflict between this Best Practice and other Mandatory Saudi Aramco
Engineering Requirement, the Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement shall
govern.

3 References

This Best Practice is based on the latest edition of the references below, unless
otherwise noted.

3.1 Saudi Aramco References

Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

SAES-L-100 Applicable Codes and Standards
SAES-L-410 Design of Pipelines
SAES-L-460 Pipeline Crossing Under Roads and Railroads

3.2 Industry Codes and Standards

American Petroleum Institute

API RP 1102 Liquid Petroleum Pipelines Crossing Railroads
and Highways

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASME B31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid
Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids
ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping
Systems

4 General

4.1 The pipe wall thickness is calculated by using the equation for internal pressure
thickness (Barlows Equation).

Page 2 of 6
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SABP-L-001
Issue Date: 28 January 2007 Wall Thickness Selection
Next Planned Update: 28 January 2012 of Transportation Pipelines

4.2 The allowances, if required, are added to the calcualted wall thickness for
internal pressure.

4.3 The wall thickness calculated based on internal pressure must be checked to be
adequate for external loads as well as structual rigidity.

4.4 The wall thickness selected shall be either the next higher standard size of
ANSI/API standard wall thicknesses or the exact calculated thickness.
Commentary Note:

Selection of the exact calculated wall thickness will reduce the steel tonnage and
result in cost savings if the quantity of pipe ordered is significant (large diameter
long pipelines). The project engineer shall evaluate the cost of both options as
early as possible in the design stage and before material procurement.

5 Pipeline Wall Thickness for the Internal Design Pressure

5.1 Saudi Aramco Standard calls for applying the design factor formula of ASME
B31.8 for all transportation piping systems regardless of the nature of the
service. The differences will be in the design factors and de-rating factors as
discussed below.

PD
t=
2SETF (Eq. 1)
where:
t = Internal pressure design wall thickness, inches.
P = Design pressure, psig.
D = Outside diameter of pipe, inches.
S = Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS), psi.
E = Longitudinal-joint quality factor.
T = Temperature derating factor.
F = Design factor.

5.2 The design pressure [P] should be selected to match process needs and will
normally be equal to the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP).
Selecting a design pressure higher than the required operating pressure increases
the required pipe wall thickness, and thus, increases the capital cost
considerably.

5.2.1 Pressure surge in liquid lines must be considered. If pressure surges

exceeding 110% of MAOP are not avoidable, and it is not practical to

Page 3 of 6
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SABP-L-001
Issue Date: 28 January 2007 Wall Thickness Selection
Next Planned Update: 28 January 2012 of Transportation Pipelines

install surge relief systems, then increasing the wall thickness of the line
to withstand these pressure surges is required.

The ASME B31.4, paragraph 402.2.4 states that the MATP, maximum
allowable transient pressure due to the pressure surges, shall not exceed
110% of the design pressure (MAOP) in the line.

5.2.2 High Integrity Pipeline Protection System (HIPS) might be installed to

protect the pipeline against overpressure in lieu of increasing the wall
thickness or installing mechanical relief system. However, such decision
must be taken based on full engineering study as described in Saudi
Aramco Engineering Report SAER-6043.

5.3 The parameter [S] is the Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) of the
material. The ASME codes B31.4 & B31.8 specify the acceptable materials
together with their SMYS. Using high strength steel decreases the required pipe
wall thickness and steel tonnage, and thus the overall project cost. However,
economical and technical evaluation must be conducted before making the final
wall thickness selection.
Commentary Note:

Higher grade steels (X 70 and higher) are not suitable for sour services because
hardness values in the field welds may exceed those permitted by NACE to avoid
sulfide stress cracking.

5.3.1 The lower thickness resulting from using higher strenght steel must be
sufficient to withstand other failure criteria like buckling. Saudi Aramco
Standards require that the minimum thickness be greater than
diameter/135.

5.3.2 Higher strength steel requires special welding procedures which are
usually more expensive and technically more difficult compared to lower
grade.

5.4 The temperature derating factor [T] accounts for the fact that the yield strength
of materials is reduced as the metal temperature increases. This factor is only
applicable for pipelines designed to ASME B31.8 with design temperature more
than 250ºF.

5.5 The design factor [F], sometimes called DF, is a safety factor that accounts for
the relative hazard created by the presence of the pipeline to the surrounding
population, environment, and facilities. This design factor is selected based on
area classification shown in Table 1 (refer to SAES-B-064 for more details).

Page 4 of 6
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SABP-L-001
Issue Date: 28 January 2007 Wall Thickness Selection
Next Planned Update: 28 January 2012 of Transportation Pipelines

Table 1. Location Class and Design Factors for Transportation Piping

Location Design Factor
Class F Density Index PDI
1 0.72
2 0.60
3 0.50
4 0.40
Population
Commentary and Examples
Desert area non developed areas
10
Water service lines.
Hydrocarbon service, in populated areas or
11-29
parallel to highways
30 and above Plant piping designed to B31.4 / B31.8
Highly populated complexes such as
Special Cases
hospitals and malls.

6 Corrosion Allowance and Mill Tolerance

6.1 Additional pipe wall thickness to allow for metal loss due to internal or external
corrosion is not normally applicable for cross country pipelines.
Commentary note:

Adding corrosion allowance as an extra corrrosion protection to coating and

cathodic prtection increases the project cost without any added value. If the
coating or cathodic protection fails at a location, the corrosion will be localized
and aggressive, and the additional thickness will not last for long and its
additional cost is not justified. Internal corrosion will normally be controlled by
corrosion inhibitor injection.

6.2 Manufacturer mill tolerance shall NOT be considered for transportation

pipelines. The Code considers the mill tolerance in the design factor [F].

7 Traffic and Soil Loads over Buried Pipeline

7.1 The required thickness of the buried sections of pipelines should be checked for
soil and traffic loads, in addition to the design pressure. These loads cause a
circumferential bending stress in the pipe.

7.2 If analysis shows that pipeline thickness must be increased under road crossing,
the wall thickness of the pipe under the road crossing shall be increased NOT
the whole pipeline.

7.3 Casing shall be used for rail road crossing, as required by the Saudi Arabian
Government, instead of increasing the pipe thickness.

7.4 Installation of concrete slab over the pipe to redistribute the stresses is an
alternative to increasing the pipe thickness, if needed, under road crossing.

Page 5 of 6
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SABP-L-001
Issue Date: 28 January 2007 Wall Thickness Selection
Next Planned Update: 28 January 2012 of Transportation Pipelines

Commentary Note:

Consulting Serviced Department completed a technology item which showed that

in many occasions, the buried pipe does not need additional reinforcement by
casing under the road crossing. Consulting Services Department owns a software
called “Analysis and Design of Buried Pipeline” to perform the stress calculation.
The software was developed through a Technology Research Item and it is
designed to run analysis for road/highway crossing and sand overburden.

8 Typical Mistakes in Wall Thickness Selection

Even though the calculation for wall thickness is relatively simple and straight forward,
unintentional mistakes and/or inappropriate assumptions cost the company more capital
investment than necessary. These typical mistakes are summarized but not limited to
the following:

8.1 Specifying a design pressure that is higher than what is required to fulfil the
operational requirement.

8.2 Selecting the higher wall thickness to match the flange pressure rating. The wall
thickness of the pipeline might be less than of the mating flange.

8.3 Setting the design pressure based on a pre-selected or existing flange rating that
exceeds the MAOP required for operation.

8.4 Applying the wrong Code.

8.5 Specifying the wrong allowable stresses in the formula.

8.6 Adding the manufacturer mill tolerance to the caculated wall thickness.

8.7 Adding corrosion allowance to pipelines where it is not needed.

8.8 Selecting exact calculated wall thickness rather than standard ANSI/API pipe
thickness to reduce the cost of steel tonnage, but on the expense of extra cost of
special manufacturing.

8.9 Selecting higher grade of pipe material to reduce the cost of steel tonnage, but
on the expense of handling and installation cost.

8.10 Overestimating of the RER/PDI, and thus, increasing the area classification.

8.11 Making pure mathematical mistakes in the calculations which is reflected in

possibly unsafe designs or costly material.

Revision Summary
28 January 2007 New Saudi Aramco Best Practice.

Page 6 of 6