Proceedings of the 2014 10th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2014
September 29 - October 3, 2014, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
PUMP STATION DESIGN
Jim W. Horner
Enbridge Pipelines
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
ABSTRACT
This paper reviews Enbridge’s recent experience with the
design and construction of new pump stations during its most
recent wave of expansion that started in 2007. This expansion
includes over $4 billion in pump station construction and
upgrade. Enbridge is working on its third generation station
design and is starting to benefit from a consistent design
composed of standard elements.
The principle objective of this design effort was to improve
environmental protection at pump stations. In the design’s
development many different areas of concern were investigated
including: building code compliance, pump shelter ventilation
requirements, improvements to station metering accuracy,
mitigations to improve fire safety, inclusion of an aboveground
sump tank, and equipment access and removal to name a few.
While work has been done to improve mechanical and
structural systems, they have also been standardized in an
attempt to develop consistent components. The objective of the
paper is to provide a summary of these developments and some
background on the thinking that shaped the design.
INTRODUCTION
The development of the new station design had several
objectives that included:
• Improvement of operational integrity;
• Reduction in station construction costs;
• Improvement in station constructability; and
• An improvement in environmental protection.
Improving operational integrity includes elimination of
buried piping that cannot be internally inspected. This
objective also means that equipment is to be readily accessible
for maintenance and “dead ended” piping should be minimized
to reduce contamination between batches. These maintenance
requirements do not permit burying of piping components like
instrumentation, flow meters and pressure control valves.
IPC2014-33740
Martin R. DeBusman
Jacobs Canada
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Reductions in station construction costs are obtained by
minimizing pipe, fitting and equipment sizes. A typical 4-unit,
NPS 24 station has been consolidated such that total extend of
the station piping is less than 100 m. Culverts are not
acceptable for access to larger equipment, so keeping piping
systems aboveground also helps to minimize the length of
piping, number of fittings and welded joints needed to
“porpoise” buried piping aboveground to allow access to these
components. Due to this advantage and others, it became an
early design philosophy to keep station piping above grade.
Keeping station piping aboveground also improves
constructability as it increases the potential for prefabrication.
Aboveground piping also minimizes the costs associated with
excavation, shoring, treatment of groundwater collecting in
excavations and the complexities attendant with confined
spaces.
Finally, improvements in environmental protection are
achieved by upgrading containment for minor leaks and
improving detection of major leaks. These improvements
would also include the potential to minimize cleanup costs
associated with a leak resulting from an operational error and
minimize site disturbance during construction.
As can be seen, these design objectives are not mutually
exclusive. Concepts that emerged included: keeping the piping
aboveground; creation of better containment and detection
systems; and minimization of pipe, fitting and equipment sizes.
To further eliminate buried piping it was also decided to
incorporate an aboveground sump tank into the design so that
all drain lines would be aboveground. Putting the sump tank
aboveground also minimizes drain line runs as it can be placed
in closer proximity to the drain source. This is an incidental
use tank, not a storage tank, and is empty most of the time.
Aside from compliance with accepted tank construction and
venting standards it does not pose a safety risk.
1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
PUMP SHELTER
The pump shelter is the most overlooked component of the
pump station. It is often viewed as an expensive accessory, and
often eliminated to the chagrin of operations and maintenance
staff. This paper begins with an examination of the benefits
and constraints associated with this core element.
The pump shelter building has been considered an asset for
equipment maintenance and can have some benefit in
improving equipment reliability. The cost benefits of these
features have usually been difficult to quantify. The first
paradigm shift made in the development of Enbridge’s new
pump station design was to consider the pump shelter to be part
of the station containment system. Cleanup costs associated
with a single minor incident can be in the millions of dollars.
Considering the frequency of minor leak events and the
potential impact on a pipeline company’s “social license”, a
reasonable level of investment can be justified.
The shelter containment system has three critical functions:
capture or deflection of leakage to the building’s containment
slab; rapid detection of a leak to facilitate shut down and
isolation of the station piping and exclusion of water from the
environment that might cause a false indication. The most
important element is the ability to detect the leak rapidly. Even
a minor leak from a ruptured instrumentation connection can
create a significant incident if it continues undetected for hours
at a remote site. Therefore the system has to be simple, reliable
and protected from the influence of the elements.
This system includes a low point floor sump with level
switch instrumentation as part of the floor slab. Any liquids
will flow to the sump and be detected. This allows the control
center to react quickly to isolate the source of pressure and
minimize the impact of the leak. The shelter, floor slab and
detection instrumentation are the major elements of this
containment system.
In the past, as the name suggests, pump shelters have
generally been restricted to a weather shelter for the mainline
pumping units and their associated driver. To provide a more
complete containment system, the pump shelter had to be
expanded to cover the pump’s isolation valves, the header
piping, control valves, flow meters and as much of the
associated instrumentation as possible, or in short to contain as
many of the leak sources as possible. To minimize the cost
associated with this larger building the associated piping was
made as compact as possible to minimize the footprint and
alternative building styles were considered.
ALTERNATE BUILDING DESIGNS
To offset the increased cost associated with these larger
“containment structures”, alternative fit-for-purpose strategies
were considered. Typically, pump shelters have been metal
clad, metal framed buildings. Metal framed, fabric clad
buildings have become more popular recently and can be 30%
to 40% lower in cost than a comparable metal clad structure.
The main detriment of any building system is that it
inhibits access to the piping and equipment it shelters and may
inhibit dissipation of any flammable gases that might evolve
from the process equipment. Some strategies have been
developed to deal with the access constraint and include:
• Installation of roof hatches over major pieces of
equipment to allow external crane access;
• Providing limited crane capacity for equipment
maintenance with access doors and entry corridors to
allow crane access inside the structure;
• Providing a full capacity crane and access to lift any
piece of equipment contained within the structure and
place it on a transport.
Two design strategies evolved. Initially building designs
included a drive through lane with access doors at each end of
the building. The intent was to allow crane access within the
building. As larger station designs were developed this strategy
was abandoned for a structure with an integral crane to reduce
the building foot print. As will be discussed in more detail
later, the change was made to ensure compliance with building
and fire codes.
Other areas that had to be revisited with a new, larger
building design included:
• fugitive emissions due to the increase in piping and
equipment included in the building envelope;
• any additional ventilation requirements owning to higher
piping design temperatures (60°C);
• any building or fire code implications; and
• fire studies to validate separation criteria for critical
facilities.
Ridge Vent
Exhaust Fan
Access Door Inlet Louvers
Figure 1: Pump Shelter Building
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS
A ventilation check was necessary because the pump
shelter would now house more piping, fittings and equipment.
The new aboveground sump tank was of particular concern.
The function of the sump tank is to provide 795 m3 (5000 gal.)
of temporary containment for fluid drained from the pumps for
maintenance or released from the pumps seals or thermal relief
valves. The sump includes a reinjection system to return this
drained fluid to the pipeline. The tank vent and connections to
pump into or out of the sump tank are outside the building. The
sump tank includes level measurement instruments and a hatch
to dump small quantities of fluid and to allow visual inspection
of the tank level. The sump tank was brought into the pump
shelter to minimize drain piping and to keep it aboveground.
The building slab also provides secondary containment and
leak detection for the sump tank.
For the purposes of this design, adequate ventilation was
defined as ventilation (natural or artificial) that is sufficient to
prevent the accumulation of significant quantities of vapour-air
or gas-air mixtures in concentration above 20% of their Lower
Explosive Limit (LEL). In addition, API RP 5051 requires a
minimum air flow rate of twelve (12) air changes per hour
(ACH) for naturally ventilated enclosed areas.
To confirm ventilation requirements were met, a fugitive
emissions study was completed. Enbridge standards also
require a further six (6) ACH of artificial ventilation be
incorporated and activated for LEL excursions above 20% or if
the internal building temperature exceeds 35°C (95°F).
Figure 2: Pump Shelter Ventilation without Ridge Vent
The Average Emission Factor Approach included in API
Std. 46382 was used to estimate the fugitive emissions from
piping and equipment within the pump shelter. The number
and type of emission sources were tabulated and assigned
emission factors from API Std. 46153. The emission factors
were multiplied by the numbers of fittings to determine the
total fugitive emissions.
A worst case emission rate of 0.549 kg/hr was obtained for
the situation where the sump tank access hatch had been left
open. This translates to a volumetric rate of 0.150 cfm. This
requires a minimum ventilation rate of 210 cfm to maintain
vapour levels below 20% of LEL (this includes a safety factor
of 4). The twelve (12) ACH requirement results in a ventilation
rate of 75,000 cfm, for the size of pump shelter contemplated,
which more than exceeds the dilution requirements. Therefore
the electrical area classification inside the building is Class 1,
Zone 2 above the sill of the inlet louvers.
In addition to the ventilation rate required to achieve the
appropriate dilution, the ability to meet the natural and artificial
air change requirement was also reviewed. Preliminary
calculations indicated that the required air changes could be
achieved with inlet louvers along both sides of the building and
exhaust louvers on the end walls. This could provide cost
savings over a building ventilation system that had exhaust
vents on the ridge of the roof or ridge vents (see Figure 1).
These ridge vents had been accepted practice in past designs;
therefore air modeling studies were completed to validate this
new approach.
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 A number of scenarios were evaluated covering a range of
temperatures and wind conditions. It was found that the end
wall exhaust vents failed to provide the necessary natural and
artificial air changes during calm wind conditions or when the
prevailing wind approached from an end wall (see Figure 2).
The ridge vent design, which included exhaust fans on the end
walls only, provided the required ventilation under all
conditions and maintained lower temperatures within the
building with natural ventilation (see Figures 3 & 4). The
analysis also confirmed that the greatest heat source in the
building was the pump motors and the heat rejected from the
piping operating at 60º C (140°F) was inconsequential.
Figure 3: Pump Shelter Temperature Profile without Ridge Vent
Figure 10: Pump Shelter Temperature Profile without Ridge Vent
Figure 4: Pump Shelter Temperature Profile with Ridge Vent
BUILDING & FIRE CODE COMPLIANCE
In over 60 years of operation, Enbridge has not had a pump
station fire resulting from equipment or piping failure.
Considering the number of pump stations in operation this
represents thousands of years of station operation. This record
is attributed to robust process controls, operating procedures
and operator training. However, the frequency of a product
leak is significantly greater than a fire event at a pump station.
While the objective of the pump shelter containment
concept was to reduce the environmental risk, Enbridge also
sought to confirm that the system was in compliance with
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
applicable building and fire codes. These codes set a level of
fire protection and life safety requirements for buildings and
their occupants. However, the primary focus of these codes is
for urban environments and they do not adequately address all
hazards and building uses.
The pump shelter is considered to fall within the building
code category Group F, Division 2. This type of building
requires a water supply for firefighting if the floor space
exceeds 600 m2 (6455 ft2) and a sprinkler system if it exceeds
800 m2 (8600 ft2). Because most pump station sites are remote,
they are not within the range of municipal water supplies or
within local fire response areas. Even if a clean water supply
was maintained on site, the time needed for a local response is
too great to prevent loss due to fire. Instead a risk assessment
by a professional engineer was completed for the building
detailing the fire prevention measures included in the design.
Some of the key analysis points of the risk assessment were:
• The pump house is not normally occupied. Personnel
are only in the building during maintenance and
inspection activities and these personnel are trained for
work in this environment.
• Ignition sources are limited as all electrical and
instrumentation is rated for Class 1, Zone 2 hazardous
areas as a minimum.
• The likelihood of a hydrocarbon release is reduced by
having the mechanical seals on the pumps directly
connected by piping to a sump tank.
• If a hydrocarbon release does occur, there are controls in
place to warn personnel. In addition to the leak
detection instrumentation, fire and combustible gas
detection will initiate evacuation alarms. The fire and
gas detection will also close the station isolation valves
eliminating the flow of hydrocarbons into the station and
limit the size of a potential release.
Figure 5: Fire Study Pipe Temperatures
External Pipe
temperatures
acceptable
• The pump and motor are also equipped with seal leak,
vibration, and bearing, motor winding and case
temperature instrumentation to detect a fault and de-
energize electrical systems to further eliminate ignition
sources.
• The potential of explosion due to buildup of vapours is a
remote risk due to the natural and artificial ventilation
provided and the gas detection systems.
By completing the required risk assessment and using
published variances allowed by provincial authorities, the
building size requirement for fire water can be increased to
1200 m2 (12,900 ft2). In spite of the fire water relief provided
by these variances, it became a default design constraint to limit
the building footprint to a maximum of 800 m2 so that
sprinklers are not required. This limitation also helps to
minimize potential building egress path lengths.
FIRE STUDY
One of the guiding principles of the design effort was to
provide containment for as many if not all of the potential leak
sources associated with the station piping. This initially
included the mainline sectionalizing valve and the two (2)
station isolation valves (commonly referred to as the 3-valve
cluster). The concept is such that there would only be welded
pipe outside the containment system. In spite of the low fire
risk mentioned it was decided that these “mainline”
components would not be located inside the shelter.
A typical 3-valve cluster design includes a through conduit,
slab gate sectionalizing valve located such that it is in line with
the buried pipeline. The actuator and valve bonnet are above
grade for ease of access and maintenance. The station isolation
valves are ball valves located aboveground and connected to
the pipeline on either side of the sectionalizing valve via
vertical risers. As will be explained later, this
5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
arrangement is preferred for the ball valves to allow a
horizontal stem orientation (with actuators above ground) and
to keep the lines to and from the station aboveground to
facilitate inspection.

A fire study was conducted to investigate the impact of a

fully involved station fire and to confirm separation criterion
from the 3-valve cluster. The study included a simulation of a
station fire that assumed a leak sufficient to fill the containment
slab (≈95 m3 or 600 bbl). The results showed that the
separation criteria, of 7.6 m (25 ft.), would be sufficient to keep
the valve temperatures well within an acceptable range and not
compromise their ability to isolate the station (Figure 5). This
agrees with the same separation required for the electrical
buildings. Additionally it was also decided that power and
control cabling to these valves would be protected by burying
them or keeping them at least 7.6 m from the pump shelter.

PIPE SIZING
At the outset of design efforts, pipe sizing was based on
limiting the velocity in station piping to 3.65 m/s (12 ft/s). It
was felt that this limit was too conservative. Pipe sizes
determined by this method yielded lower pressure drops, but it
also resulted in significantly higher station construction costs
and greater pipe stresses owing to the larger and more rigid
piping. This limiting velocity was based on recommendations
in API 14E4.
Many publications have shown API 14E to be too
conservative. It was subsequently decided to increase the
limiting velocity based on the work of Salama5 on piping
erosion with fluids containing sediment. The accuracy of his
work was verified by four independent laboratories by
measuring erosion rates in pipe bends. Testing of various crude
streams helped to determine a basis for particulate size and
concentration. This work indicated that a maximum velocity of
11.74 m/s (38.5 ft/s) in crude oil would result in an acceptable
erosion rate. Therefore, the limiting velocity was increased to
6.1 m/s (20 ft/s). This decreased the station piping size from
NPS 30 to NPS 24, saving over $2.5 million per station.
PUMP PIPING DESIGN
One of the major determinants of pump station piping
design is the hydraulic considerations associated with the
pumps. Elbows generate turbulence that can affect the flow
distribution entering a pump nozzle as shown in Figure 6. This
is particularly problematic on the single-stage double suction
pumps most commonly used in pipeline applications. Enbridge
standards require keeping suction elbows out of plane with the
pump axis or adding 5D to 7D of straight pipe between the
elbow and the pump suction.
Adding straight pipe to the pump suction to keep the piping
flat increases the spacing between the pumps and ultimately
increases the footprint of the station. This configuration also
inhibits access to the pump for maintenance and usually
Figure 6: Flow Distortion at Elbow
requires more pipe and fittings to achieve the necessary piping
flexibility. Therefore, the most common piping schemes keep
the elbows vertical with 2D of straight pipe between the elbow
and the pump suction. This ensures the turbulence induced by
the elbow in the vertical plane does not affect the axial or
horizontal flow split in the pump case as the fluid is distributed
between the two suction eyes of the pump impeller.
Past practice turned the elbows down to allow good access
to the pump, but the pump suction and discharge lines had to be
routed under the pump house floor which made inspection
problematic and also increased construction challenges. As
pumps became larger it became common to elevate the pumps
such that a horizontal flange pair could be installed near floor
level at the base of the elbow to facilitate removal of the piping
and to add a degree of flexibility in the fit-up of the piping.
Alternately trenches or basements have been employed to allow
access to the piping, but this introduces structural complexity
and, added cost, and also creates a confined space.
Some station designs have been executed with the pump
elbows turned up. The advantage of this type of arrangement is
that the pump and motor can be placed at ground level
providing good access to the equipment while eliminating the
need for platforms. The drawback with this design is that what
goes up must come down. There is a significant volume of
additional fluid in these vertical loops that has to be drained to
allow equipment maintenance. Proper venting of the loops can
be problematic and this approach requires extra fittings, pipe
and welded joints. While these vertical loops can provide
excellent flexibility this can also be a drawback as they need to
be stabilized to prevent excessive vibration. Due to adverse
experiences, this type of design is discouraged at Enbridge.

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 The approach adopted was to elevate the pumps on raised
foundations to allow the elbows to be placed in a vertical down
orientation. The pumps were elevated so that all station piping
was kept aboveground for ease of access and leak monitoring.
This configuration requires the addition of an access platform
around the pumps and motors, but it allows a critical ancillary
benefit. The sump tank and associated drain piping can be
brought aboveground. The pumps can drain by gravity to the
sump tank and the sump can be placed on the pump shelter
containment slab which in turn provides secondary containment
and leak monitoring.
HEADER PIPING DESIGN
The other major hydraulic consideration is in the
manifolding or interconnection of the mainline pumps. Pumps
can be connected in either series or parallel to provide the
specific combination of flow and pressure required. Most of
the systems are currently being designed to accommodate
higher viscosity crudes. Due to the steep “system curve” or
higher pressure gradient associated with viscous crudes, series
pumping configurations tend to provide the greatest utility.
With the pipe to pump interface and manifold
configuration selected, the piping layout can proceed. The
general configuration starts with the station suction entering
one end of the pump shelter with connection to a Tee at the
suction of the first pump. The Tee directs the flow into the
suction of the first unit or allows the flow to bypass the pump if
it is out of service. The bypass outlet from the Tee is the
beginning of the “station header”. This common length of
piping provides the manifold that connects to the suction and
discharge of each pump. Each pump has a valve on the suction
and discharge piping to allow isolation for maintenance.
Figure 7: Pump Unit Piping
Suction
Valve
Unit
Check Valve
Discharge
Valve
The length of station header between the pump isolation
valves includes a check valve. This check valve closes to
prevent recirculation from the pump discharge to its suction
during normal operation. When the pump is isolated, this check
valve opens to allow flow to bypass the pump as shown in
Figure 7. There can be significant turbulence at the discharge
Tee as the flow turns into the header. This turbulence can cause
the check valve to remain open temporarily during pump
startup. If the check valve remains open as the pump continues
operation it will eventually close under full differential pressure
developed by the pump. Closure of the check valve under these
conditions will cause water hammer and premature wear to the
check valve seats. For this reason the check valve is usually
positioned closer to the suction Tee to minimize the influence
of the turbulence at the discharge Tee.
After the last pump, the header is normally turned back
180º towards the 3-valve cluster. This “return” header provides
the necessary straight pipe for the pressure control valve (PCV)
if required and the station flow meter. The flow meter was not
always a common component of pump station design, but it is
now considered essential to augment the accuracy of leak
detection systems. To obtain the desired accuracy, Enbridge
standards require 20D of straight pipe immediately upstream of
the meter and 10 D downstream.
In the past, the pump header and this length of straight
return pipe were outside the pump shelter building. In this new
design, all this piping is included in the pump shelter. The
return header continues outside the building to make
connection to the station discharge isolation valve. This covers
all the major piping components except the Bypass Check
Valve and the station Discharge Check Valve.
The bypass check valve is only required on pump stations
that employ PCVs. It is required by Enbridge standards to
safeguard against inadvertent closure of the PCV. If such an
event occurs it can cause a significant transient and lead to a
cascading shutdown of the pipeline. To prevent damage and
this loss of control, a bypass line complete with check valve is
installed connecting the station suction to the return header
downstream of the PCV, but upstream of the station flow meter.
This provides an alternate “relief” flow path should the PCV
close while continuing to provide flow measurement. The 20D
of straight pipe required upstream of the flow meter means this
line is significantly longer than it would be prior to the
inclusion of the flow meter.
The station discharge check valve is usually positioned
between the PCV and the bypass connection to the return
header. The function of the discharge check valve is to prevent
a major back flow through the station that might cause the loss
of line pack or an idle pump to “windmill” in reverse rotation.
Starting a pump under this condition could cause shaft or
coupling damage. The one unintended outcome of adding this
check valve is that it can separate the header into two sections
complicating thermal relief (see Figure 8).
7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Sump Tank
Figure 8: Station Piping Layout
When piping is sheltered from the elements, thermal relief
required by solar heat gain can be eliminated. The exposed
lengths of suction and discharge piping between the pump
shelter and the 3-valve cluster provide sufficient exposure that
thermal relief was deemed necessary. The station discharge
check valve would normally require thermal relief on either
side of the valve. To eliminate this redundancy, and allow a
better positioning of the relief valve, the discharge check valve
is drilled with a 12.7 mm hole (0.5 inch) so that it can still
prevent massive back flow, but not allow a pressure differential
to develop. This is a common strategy used in petrochemical
plant piping to allow some flushing of idle pumps.
PIPE STRESS
After the pipe layout has been developed, a stress analysis
is conducted to confirm that the combined stresses in the piping
meets code requirements. The major consideration usually
tends to be the load limits imposed by the pump. The pump
vendor stipulates acceptable forces and moments that can be
absorbed at the pump nozzles. These levels are well below
those that might lead to failure, but are designed to keep
imposed distortions at a level that will not impede the long term
reliability of the pump. Another important design parameter is
the operating temperature. The design temperature on several
of the Enbridge systems is 60°C (140°F). While this relatively
modest temperature isn’t sufficient to cause derating of carbon
steel piping under CSA Z6626 it was found to have an impact
on the piping stress.
Three Valve
Cluster
By Pass Flow Meter
Check Valve
Discharge
PCV Check Valve
The piping between the pump and the unit isolation valve
was designed to be as short as possible to minimize the impact
of thermal growth on this segment. The greater problem was
the interaction with the longer station header. A common
method of controlling stress is to increase flexibility by adding
loops or bends. The standard header design is composed of
straight pipe with check valves between a series of Tees
connecting each pump suction and discharge line. To provide
the desired flexibility, a series of functional loops were
incorporated between each pump.
Expansion loops between each pump were created by
turning the Tee on the discharge of the first pump such that the
flow went straight through the Tee instead of turning into a
straight header. The header continues with two 90° elbows
returning straight through a second Tee into the suction of the
next pump as shown in Figure 7.
This loop reduces the pressure drop between the units as
the head loss flowing straight through the two Tees is 12 times
less than turning through each Tee. This associated reduction in
turbulence also lessens the negative influence on the unit check
valve.
Aside from anchors to control header deflection, the only
other major control feature was a restraint required on the
suction of the first unit and the discharge of the last unit. A
knee brace support was required to counteract reactions from
8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
the header pushing against the pump nozzles through the unit
lines. These supports resist these deflections limiting loads on
the pump nozzles (Figure 9).
rotation of the ball such that it mimicked the movement of the
gate in a slab gate valve.
Slab gate and ball valves share a common problem. The
closure element (gate or ball) is drawn across the seats through
the entire stroke. A common mode of failure is that deleterious
material is drawn into the seats during operating and becomes
lodged. This material can then score the closure element over
time impairing the seal. Gate valves are typically designed
such that the gate moves up to open and grit that has settled
next to the bottom of the gate is pulled away from the seat and
usually flushed clear by flow through the valve.

If the ball valve stem is in the vertical orientation, material

can be drawn into the bottom of the seat as it opens. With the
stem in the horizontal orientation, the ball moves up relative to
the seats on one side and down on the other. It was decided to
select the valve rotation such that the ball moved up on the
header side and down on the pump side. The rational for this
arrangement is that the pump side of the valve has a small
Figure 9: Piping Knee Brace Support volume of fluid with a limited supply of sediment. Conversely,
there is continuous flow on the header side with the potential to
deposit a larger amount of sediment adjacent to closed valves.
VALVE SELECTION
Therefore it is assumed that the greater risk of damage is on the
Historically station designs used through conduit, slab gate
header side.
valves for all large bore piping. This type of valve has been
favored for pipeline applications because it is simple, relatively
One drawback of the horizontal stem orientation is that it
low in cost, includes a double block and bleed capacity (DBB)
complicates removal of the actuator in the field. A vertical
and can be maintained in place as it is normally a top entry
stem orientation allows a simple rigging of the actuator such
design. The problem with this type of valve is that they are a
that it can be pulled vertically. While this isn’t a major deficit,
rising stem design so the actuator is located on top. Due to the
the design team worked with maintenance personal and the
tall body, a platform is required to access the actuator. Another
actuator vendor to develop a viable solution. It was found that
feature of the design is that the valve body is isolated from the
the addition of a couple of attachment points to the actuator
flowing fluid when it is fully open or closed. This minimizes
would allow safe rigging of the actuator so that it could be
contamination between the flowing fluid and the fluid trapped
moved horizontally off the valve stem.
in the valve body cavity. The problem with this feature is there
isn’t a lot of mixing as the valve transitions and emulsified
water can precipitate out of the crude and become trapped in Figure 10: Ball Valve Flushing
the valve body where it can freeze.

Ball valves are being used more extensively in the pipeline

industry as they are more compact, and competitively priced.
They can also eliminate the need for platforms to access the
actuator. They also have the added benefit of providing greater
flushing of the body cavity as the ball transitions between the
closed and open position (Figure 10).

There have been some adverse experiences with the use of

ball valves in liquid pipelines; therefore, every effort was made
to engineer a successful installation. The one assumed
weakness of the ball valve with the stem in the vertical position
was the lower trunion bearing. It was felt that water could
precipitate into this region like the slab gate and cause
corrosion of the trunion bearing or inhibit valve operation if it
became frozen. It was decided to install the valve with the stem
in the horizontal orientation. This alignment had two other
benefits; it positioned the actuator on the side of the valve
where it can be accessed without a platform; and changed the

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

PUMP SELECTION
The pump chosen for the mainline unit is a single stage,
double suction, horizontally split case, between bearings design
which is simply designated a BB1 in API 6107. This style of
pump has a long established history in pipeline service. The
greater problem with the pump selection can be the definition
of operating parameters for the pump. Pipelines are often
constructed to operate at a lower initial rate and over time
expand capacity as greater volumes materialize. This often
requires a costly replacement of the pump and driver and
modification of the associated piping.
An alternative approach is to install a larger capacity pump
case that can be hydraulically modified to operate at a lower
flow rate efficiently (Horner8). This can be done with a pump
case design that includes a replaceable element that can be
changed in the field to modify the hydraulic characteristics.
Two common methods of achieving this flexibility are to
incorporate a diffuser element or replaceable volute lip inserts.
The design chosen by Enbridge was a pump with removable
volute inserts (Figure 11).
Figure 11: Volute Insert
The strategy usually requires that the pump is initially
provided with volute inserts for about half the ultimate capacity
of the pipeline. The motors may be slightly oversized, but not
much larger than is required for the initial capacity. In this way
the pre-investment is limited to the pump. The pump is
purchased with a second set of inserts that have been ground to
blend into the unique contours of each casting. When the
capacity has to be increased the inserts are changed and a new
impellor is installed. The new impellor is sized to operate
efficiently at the higher capacity, but typically it produces less
head as limited by the power of the motor. Additional pumps
have to be installed in series to make up for the head deficit.
The pumps employed are 4,300 kW (5,750 HP) to 5,200
kW (7,000 HP) units. Lower speed 1800 nominal RPM units
are preferred; because even at these power levels, bearings can
be obtained that eliminate the need for forced lube systems.
Higher speed 3600 RPM pumps are common and have lower
costs, but the added cost of the required forced lube system
usually eliminates any cost advantage. The 1800 RPM units
also have greater reliability owing to the lower operating speed.
EQUIPMENT FOUNDATION DESIGN
The foundations for the rotating equipment are designed
for both the static weight of the equipment and the dynamic
operation loads. The foundation is composed of three main
components: the pedestal supporting the pump and motor; the
underground foundation block; and the supporting piles.
The design of the pedestal portion of the foundation is not
governed by the weight of the unit but by the piping. The
height of the pedestal is dictated by the elevation required to fit
the piping connected to the pump. A secondary height
consideration is to allow personnel access to the unit valves,
under the platform around the units.
These elevation constraints made the pedestals relatively
high, so it became a challenge to reduce the amount of concrete
required. The section of the foundation under the motor is
narrower than the pump section because the motor is narrower
than the pump. As well, the length of the pedestal is reduced as
much as possible based on the equipment size.
The underground foundation block transfers the loads from
the pedestal to the piles. Its size is dictated by the horizontal
area required to fit enough piles under the foundation. A
dynamic analysis was conducted using DYNA-6.1 software.
Operating speeds in the range of 50% to 110% of the pump
design speed were checked for resonance conditions. Due to
the mass available in the higher pedestals, it was found that the
foundation block could be kept quite shallow and still have
enough mass for dampening.
Figure 12: Stepped Foundation
EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
Pumps and motors are commonly installed on a common
baseplate supplied by the pump vendor. While this approach
claims construction efficiencies, they are seldom achieved in
practice with large pumps (Horner9). Baseplate requirements
included in API 610 have developed significantly over the
years. At the same time pump power requirements have grown.
Most common baseplate designs are not adequately designed to
withstand the rigors of transport and installation and require in
place machining after grouting to obtain the required coplanar
tolerances at the motor mounting surfaces.
10 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 Therefore, pumps are ordered with a smaller baseplate
sized to support the pump and coupling guard only. This
smaller baseplate has shown to be more robust as demonstrated
by a relatively trouble free installation history. The motors are
installed separately on machined rails. The motor shaft
centerline to bottom of stator dimension is often 500 mm (20
inches) less than the pump so the common baseplate approach
can have elevated rails on pedestals which can have
troublesome resonances. With the grouted rail design the
concrete foundation is stepped as shown in Figure 12 so the
motor rails are mounted directly on the concrete. This helps to
isolate the pump from the motor and provide a very stable
mounting surface for the motor.
The mounting rails are drilled and tapped to accept jacking
bolts and anchor bolts. The rails are adjusted with the jacking
bolts to meet the required level and coplanar tolerances, and are
held fast by the anchor bolts. The rails are grouted and the
jacking screws removed. 25 mm to 50 mm of grout will
provide a homogeneous bedding for the mounting rails. The
rails are then drilled and tapped in the field to accept the motor
hold down bolts. This final step ensures that the motor is
located to suit the pump and provide the best possible
alignment.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
A concern with transitioning station piping aboveground
was that the loss of damping by the soil might result in higher
piping vibration. Several design constraints were adopted to
mitigate this potential issue. These strategies included:
• Limiting pipe support spacing to a maximum of 6.1 m
(20 ft.) regardless of pipe size;
• Keeping all small bore connections within 1D of pipe
supports;
• Using adjustable pipe supports that maintain good
contact with the pipe, while allowing for removal for
inspection; and
• Enbridge’s piping design standards require use of a
design factor (F) of 0.6 instead 0.8 (as required by CSA
Z6626). This reduces operating stress levels by requiring
an increase in pipe wall thickness and/or pipe SMYS.
To assess the magnitude of the vibration problems that
might result by bringing the station piping aboveground, a
dynamic analysis was also completed. This assessment
included a forced response analysis of the pumps and piping. A
rotating unbalance force of 67 N peak (15 lbf) over the
operating range of 900 to 1800 RPM was imposed at the
centerline of each pump. The maximum vibration levels over
the operating range were observed on the unit piping and found
to be a maximum of 7% of the vibration acceptance criteria of
2.54 mm/s (0.1 ips).
The analysis indicated that the small bore piping
connections did require minor modification. Structural bracing
was developed to limit relative movement of the small bore
piping at the connection with the large bore piping. The
bracing was only required at the thermal relief valve and the
sump tank reinjection connection.
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this design effort was to improve the
pump station’s environmental protection capability without
introducing a significant new operating or process safety risk.
The secondary objective was to improve constructability and
develop a more cost effective design. This design exercise
required a re-evaluation of many accepted practices and design
assumptions. The result was a significant departure from past
designs, due to the many new constraints introduced in the
design. Some of the cost saving innovations that helped reduce
costs by $3.5 million per station included:
• Drilling the station discharge check valve to eliminate a
second thermal relief valve and some challenging drain
piping.
• Reduction in station piping costs by increasing the
limiting velocity to 20 ft/s and reducing pipe and
equipment sizes.
• Elimination of the buried sump tank. The installed cost
of the buried tank is almost twice that of an
aboveground tank.
• A significant reduction in the heat traced and insulated
drain header.
• The use of ball valves instead of slab gate valves. The
ball valve has a lower cost; the required actuator is
smaller and accessible without a platform.
• Reduction in pump shelter costs due to the use of a
fabric clad building.
• Greater degree of prefabrication minimizing the number
of field welds.
NOMENCLATURE
ACH Air Changes per Hour
cfm Cubic Feet per Minute
ips Inches per second
LEL Lower Explosive Limit
PCV Pressure Control Valve
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dave Lawson, Enbridge, Edmonton, AB
Ryan Champney, Enbridge, Edmonton AB
Joe Dhaliwal, Enbridge, Edmonton AB
Rob Ladner, Jacobs Canada, Edmonton AB
Kevin Oldham, Jacobs Canada, Edmonton AB
11 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
REFERENCES
[1] API Recommended Practice 505, “Recommended
Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical
Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class 1,
Zone 0, Zone 1 and Zone 2”, August 1998, American
Petroleum Institute.
[2] API Recommended Practice 4638, “Calculation
Workbook for Oil and Gas Production Equipment Fugitive
Emissions”, April 1996, American Petroleum Institute.
[3] API Recommended Practice 4615, Emission Factor
for Oil and Gas Production Operations, December 1994,
American Petroleum Institute.
[4] API Recommended Practice 14E, “Recommended
Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore
Production Platform Piping”, 1991, American Petroleum
Institute.
[5] Salama, M.M., 1998, “Alternative to API 14E
Erosional Velocity Limits for Sand Laden Fluids”,
Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology
Conference OTC Paper 8898 Tulsa, OK.
[6] CAN/CSA-Z662-11. “Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems”,
2011, Canadian Standards Association.
[7] API Standard 610, “Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum,
Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries”, October
2004, American Petroleum Institute.
[8] Horner, J.W., 1995, “Development of a Diffuser Pump
for Pipeline Service”, Proceedings of the Pipelines,
Terminals and Storage Conference, Houston, Texas
[9] Horner, J.W., 1998, “Installation of Pipeline Pumps”,
Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference,
Calgary, AB.

12 Copyright © 2014 by ASME