Proceedings of the 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
September 26 – September 30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
COMPARISON OF PRESSURE DECAY MODELS FOR LIQUID PIPELINES
Shenwei Zhang, Terry Huang, Colin Dooley, Roger Lai, Brett Conrad
TC Energy Corporation
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a comparative study of various models
in characterizing the reduction of pressure severity along the
length of a given liquid pipeline section. Four models were
considered in this study, namely the API RP1176 model, CEPA
model, SSI Linear Interpolation model and Pressure Range
Linear interpolation model. A total of 132 sets of pressure
spectra from TC Energy’s liquid pipelines were collected. Each
set includes three pressure spectra, namely one pressure
spectrum from a given intermediate valve station and other two
pressure spectra from the discharge end of its immediate
upstream pump station and the suction end of its immediate
downstream pump station. The SSI is used to characterize the
severity of a given pressure spectrum. To quantify the
uncertainties of the model error associated with the four
pressure decay models, the calculated SSI based on the
spectrum from the intermediate valve station is compared with
the model-predicted SSI at the location of the intermediate
valve station based on the SSIs of the upstream discharge and
downstream suction pressure spectra. The comparative
analyses indicate that the CEPA model is the most accurate and
precise model in evaluating the pressure decay along the length
of a given pipeline section, and in a descending order followed
by Pressure Range Linear Interpolation model, API RP1176
model, and SSI Linear Interpolation model. A fitness-for-
service assessment program for liquid pipeline can incorporate
the probabilistic characteristics of the model error associated
with each of the four models derived based on the 132 sets of
pressure data.
1. INTRODUCTION
Pressure cycling generated from pressure fluctuations in
liquid pipelines may cause fatigue damage. Pressure cycling
often has a significant impact on the estimated fatigue life as
part of the fitness-for-service (FFS) assessment of pipeline
containing cracks or dents. Considering a pipeline section
between two pump stations as an example, the pressure is
typically assumed to be constant over the entire section of
1 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
IPC2022-87166
pipeline and the discharge pressure spectrum is used in the FFS
assessment as a conservative assumption. While this is a
reasonable assumption for integrity anomalies adjacent to the
upstream pump station, it leads to conservative assessment
outcomes for integrity anomalies further downstream. This is
mainly because the pressure does not remain constant and
typically reduces over the length of pipeline section between
the upstream and downstream pump stations.
In general, for liquid pipelines, when the transported
product flows along the pipeline, the pressure reduces due to
elevation, frictional pressure losses (e.g., friction between the
transported product and pipe wall due to the viscosity of the
transported product) and other causes of pressure losses, such
as presence of bends causing dramatic pipe directional change
and/or presence of valves causing internal forces etc. [1]. The
phenomenon of pressure reduction over the length of a pipe
section between two pump stations is demonstrated by the three
one-year operation pressure spectra shown in Figure 1. The
three pressure spectra were respectively collected from the
discharge end of the upstream pump station, suction end of
downstream pump station, and the valve station at an
intermediate point of the pipeline section. As indicated by
Figure 1, the magnitudes of pressure cycling have a dramatic
drop over the length of the pipeline section between the
upstream and the downstream pump stations. Therefore,
applying the discharge pressure spectrum to the FFS assessment
of the pipeline section will produce conservative outcome for
certain length of the pipeline section and therefore could lead to
unnecessary integrity actions.

Figure 1: Illustration of magnitude reduction of pressure
spectra along the length of liquid pipeline section
To optimize the FFS assessment and the associated
integrity decisions, it is desirable to use a location specific
pressure cycling, which represents a realistic cyclic pressure
severity at that location. To this end, empirical models have
been developed to characterize the decay of cyclic pressure
severity along the pipeline section. For example, the pressure
decay model reported by John Kiefner et al. [2] and the CEPA
model developed by BMT Fleet Technology [1][3]. In practice,
some pipeline operators may use the Linear Interpolation model
to determine the cyclic pressure at an intermediate location
between the upstream and downstream pump stations.
It should be noted that each of these models has its own
assumptions and simplifications. None of them is perfect in
evaluating the pressure decay; that is, the model is associated
with model error. The uncertainty associated with the model
belongs to knowledge uncertainty and integrity decisions driven
by model predictions are often sensitive to the uncertainty of
model error. Integrity decision optimization is a constrained
optimization, where the constrained condition is safety. Safety
is provided by doing the appropriate actions not necessarily
more or less actions. It has been demonstrated by many
studies, e.g., [4-5], that the use of a more accurate and more
precise model enables integrity decisions which results in safer
and more economical pipeline operation. Therefore, it is
worthwhile to compare the existing models and identify the
most accurate and precise model to facilitate the FFS
assessment and optimize the integrity decisions.
The objective of the study reported in this paper is to
investigate different pressure decay models and compare the
accuracy and precision of those models. To this end, a total of
132 sets of pressure spectra were collected, each of which
includes three pressure spectra with two from the discharge end
of upstream pump station and suction end of downstream pump
station and one from an intermediate valve station in between.
The probabilistic characteristics of the model error associated
with each of the four pressure decay models were derived based
on the 132 sets of data. This was also used to quantitatively
compare the accuracy and precision of these models.
2 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
2. MODEL ERROR
Cyclic loading arises from fluctuations in the internal
pressure of the pipeline. The actual pressure history is a
spectrum with variable amplitude. To apply the pressure
spectrum to the fatigue life assessment, the Rainflow cycle
counting algorithm specified in ASTM E1049 – 85(2011) [6] is
used to convert a variable load spectrum, see Figure 2, to a
loading range histogram that consists of blocks of constant
loading ranges as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 illustrates a total
of n pairs of (pi, Ni) (i = 1 to n) with pi denoting the ith
pressure range and Ni denoting its corresponding number of
cycles.
Figure 2: Operating pressure history with a variable load
spectrum
Number of cycles
2
n
... i
...
1
...
p1 p2 pi ... pn Pressure range
Figure 3: Loading range histogram consisting of blocks of
constant loading ranges
The spectrum severity indicator (SSI) [1][3][7] is then used to
quantify the severity of a given pressure spectrum. Note that
the SSI is an equivalent number of cycles corresponding to a
characteristic pressure range, denoted by P, that results in the
same fatigue damage as the actual pressure spectrum. The SSI
is calculated on an annual basis despite the duration of the
actual pressure spectrum. For pressure spectra over longer or
shorter than one-year duration, the equivalent number of cycles
over the entire time history is scaled to represent the equivalent
number of cycles over one-year operation. It should also be
noted that P can be any positive values. In this study, a
consistent P value was applied to all pressure decay models
for the calculation of SSI values for comparative analysis
purpose.
It follows the above description and the Rainflow counting
results shown in Figure 3, the quantity of SSI is evaluated by
using the Miner’s rule [7]:
∑
𝑆𝑆𝐼 (1)
∆
where the constant m is a material-dependent parameter and
equals 3 in this study.
It should be emphasized that the calculation of SSI (i.e.,
Miner’s rule) considers the cyclic pressure in a manner that is
consistent with the calculation of fatigue life; In other words,
the calculated fatigue lives are inversely linearly proportional to
the quantity of SSI [1]. For example, for two identical dents
(denoted by Dents A and B, respectively) on a given pipeline
section with constant diameter, wall thickness and pipe grade, if
the SSI corresponding to the location of Dent A is four times as
high as the SSI corresponding to the location of Dent B, the
fatigue life of Dent A is 25% of the fatigue life of Dent B.
To quantify the uncertainties of pressure decay models and
compare the accuracy and precision of each pressure decay
model, the model error was introduced in this paper. Model
error represents knowledge uncertainty and is a parameter
characterizing the uncertainties associated with the
idealizations, assumptions and simplifications embedded in a
model. In this paper, the model error  is defined as the actual-
to-predicted ratio that is given by
𝜀 (2)
where SSIa is the actual SSI evaluated from a given pressure
spectrum, and SSIp is the predicted SSI based on the pressure
spectra from the discharge end of its immediate upstream pump
station and the suction end of it immediate downstream pump
station using the pressure decay models described in Section 3.
3. SSI DECAY MODELS
Various industry models have been developed to
characterize the decay of pressure or SSI along the length of
liquid pipeline from upstream to downstream pump stations.
These models include API 1176 model, CEPA model and
conventional Linear Interpolation models, which are described
as follows.
Considering each model uses different symbols in
describing the geospatial location such as distance between two
pump stations, a consistent symbolling convention is defined
and used for describing all the models considered in this paper,
which is illustrated in Figure 4, where LDS denotes the distance
between the discharge end of the upstream pump station and the
suction end of the downstream pump station; LDI denotes the
distance between the discharge end of the upstream pump
station and the intermediate location of interest, and LSI denotes
the distance between the suction end of the downstream pump
station and intermediate location of interest.
3 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
Figure 4: Illustration of geospatial locations of pump
stations and intermediate location
3.1 API RP1176 MODEL
API RP1176 [8] recommended a model (referred to as API
RP1176 model hereafter) to evaluate the operating pressure at
an intermediate location, denoted by PI, between the upstream
and downstream pump stations. PI can be calculated by
interpolating the discharge pressure, denoted by PD, at the
upstream pump station and the suction pressure, denoted by PS,
at the downstream pump station. When the pipe diameter is
constant over the entire section between upstream and
downstream pump stations, API RP1176 model is given by Eq.
(8), which is the same as the model reported by John Kiefner et
al. [7].
𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝐾 ℎ ℎ 𝐾 ℎ ℎ (3)
where K denotes a constant of head and equals 0.34 psig/ft [7],
and hD, hS and hI denote elevations associated with the location
of the discharge end of upstream pump station, suction end of
downstream pump station and intermediate location of interest
between the two pump stations, respectively.
Note that the use of Eq. (3) to interpolate the operating
pressure spectrum requires the discharge and suction pressure
spectra be synchronized chronologically (i.e., pressures from
both pump stations must be acquired at the same time stamp
with the same duration over the same time period).
While Eq. (3) was intended to interpolate the operating
pressure spectrum, this study explores the use of Eq. (3) to
interpolate the pressure range. The interpolation equation for
pressure range, which is given by Eq. (4):
∆𝑝 _ ∆𝑝 _ ∆𝑝 _ ∆𝑝 _ 𝐾 ℎ ℎ
𝐾 ℎ ℎ (4)
wherepI_q denotes the predicted pressure range at the
intermediate location and pD_q (pS_q) denotes the equivalent
pressure range corresponding to a number of cycle equal to q
(note: q can be any positive values and is typically assumed to
be unity for simplicity in the calculation) associated with the
discharge (suction) pressure spectrum and is calculated by
using the Miner’s rule:
∑
∆𝑝 _ (4a)
 ∑
Table 1: Model constants in CEPA model
∆𝑝 _ (4b)
Product
with (piD, NiD) and (piS, NiS) denoting the pairs (see Figure 3) a b c d
viscosity
obtained from the Rainflow counting process for discharge and v≤100cts 1.048 0.858 0.993 0.81
suction pressure spectra, respectively. v>100cts 1.15 0.75 1.2 1.6
Based on the interpolated pressure range using the API Note that the values of a, b, c and d corresponding to
1176 model and Miner’s rule, the SSI at the intermediate v>100cts are used in this study.
location, denoted by SSII can be calculated by
3.3 SSI LINEAR INTERPOLATION MODEL
∆ _
𝑆𝑆𝐼 (5) In practice, the linear decay model is commonly used to
∆
estimate the decay of SSI, where the elevation is intentionally
It should be noted that to use Eqs. (4) and (5) for excluded for simplicity. This method is simpler than but
interpolating the SSI, the pressure spectra corresponding to the different from the CEPA model. The former assumes the SSI
discharge end of upstream pump station and the suction end of follows a linear decay as a function of distance whereas the
downstream pump station are not necessarily acquired at the latter assumes the SSI decay is not a linear function of distance.
same time stamp. However, the data associated with the two It follows SSID and SSIS given by Eqs. (6a) and (6b) that SSII is
pressure spectra must be acquired with the same data evaluated by a linear interpolation function:
acquisition frequency (e.g., one minute or other user-defined
frequency depending on data availability or procedure 𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑆𝑆𝐼 (7)
requirements) and over the same time period (i.e., the same
starting and ending days over a given period). The durations of 3.4 PRESSURE CHANGE LINEAR INTERPOLATION
both pressure spectra over the given period are not necessarily MODEL
identical because the calculated SSI for a given time period
This method is a simplified version of the API RP1176
(either longer or shorter than a year) can be normalized to an
model by intentionally excluding the effect of elevation on the
SSI value on an annual basis.
pressure range from Eq. (4). Given that, SSII is evaluated using
The above-described requirements of data acquisition are
also applicable to the other three models described in Sections Eq. (5) with pI_q given by Eq. (8):
3.2 through 3.4. ∆𝑝 _ ∆𝑝 ∆𝑝 ∆𝑝 (8)
_ _ _
3.2 CEPA MODEL
It is expected that the model error of this model is similar
In 2016, a location specific liquid pipeline cyclic pressure to that of the API 1176 model described in Section 3.1 because
model was developed by BMT Fleet Technology Limited the elevation along the entire length of a given pipeline section
(BMT) on behalf of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association affects the magnitude of operating pressure in the pipeline but
(CEPA) and therefore is called CEPA model in this study [1]. does not affect how a pressure changes along a pipeline [1].
Both CEPA model and API RP1176 model are adopted by API
RP 1183 in 2020. The CEPA model can be used to directly 4. MODEL COMPARISON
evaluate the SSI at an intermediate location between two 4.1 DATABASE OF PRESSURE SPECTRUM
adjacent pump stations by interpolating the SSI corresponding
to the discharge pressure spectrum of the upstream pump This section describes the dataset collected to quantify the
station and suction pressure spectrum of the downstream pump model error, which is used to quantitatively compare the
station. The interpolated SSI based on the CEPA model, SSII, is accuracy and precision of each of the four models considered.
calculated by To quantify the model error given by Eq. (2), it is required
to collect a series of pressure spectrum sets. Each pressure
𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑎 𝑏 𝑐 𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑑 𝑆𝑆𝐼 (6) spectrum set includes three pressure spectra respectively from
three locations (see Figure 5):
 Discharge pressure spectrum from the upstream pump
where a, b, c and d are constants that are dependent on the
station
viscosity of transporting product with their values shown in
Table 1, SSID and SSIS denote SSI corresponding to the  Pressure spectrum from an intermediate valve station
discharge and suction pressure spectra, respectively, and are  Suction pressure spectrum from the downstream pump
calculated using the Miner’s rule: station
The above-mentioned three pressure spectra over the same
∑ one-year period were collected from the SCADA system with
𝑆𝑆𝐼 (6a)
∆ an identical acquisition frequency of one minute.
∑
𝑆𝑆𝐼 (6b)
∆

4 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

 In addition, the required geospatial information associated 20000
1:1 Line
with the three locations were also collected to determine the 18000
API RP1176 Model
distance between the upstream and downstream pump stations,
the distance between the upstream pump station and the 16000

intermediate valve station, as well as the distance between the 14000

intermediate valve station and the downstream pump station,

Predicted SSI (cycles/yr)
12000
which is illustrated in Figure 5.
A total of 132 intermediate valve stations with immediate 10000

upstream and downstream pump stations were identified; that 8000

is, a total of 132 pressure spectrum sets were collected. For
6000
each pressure set, the Rainflow counting technique was firstly
applied to evaluate the SSI of each of the three pressure spectra. 4000

For a given intermediate valve station, the SSI calculated from 2000
Rainflow counting using the pressure spectrum is considered as
the actual SSI, which is compared with the predicted SSI given 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
by the pressure decay models based on the SSI values of the Actual SSI (cycles/yr)

upstream discharge and downstream suction pressure spectra.

Note that the SSI of the upstream pressure spectrum is used for (a) API RP1176 model
a valve station as the difference of SSIs associated with the 20000
upstream and downstream pressure spectra of a valve station is 1:1 Line
18000
negligible. The comparative results are presented in Section CEPA Model
4.2. 16000

14000

Predicted SSI (cycles/yr)
12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
Figure 5: Illustration of geospatial locations of pump 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
stations and intermediate valve station Actual SSI (cycles/yr)

4.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (b) CEPA model

The comparison of the predicted SSI with the actual SSI 20000
1:1 Line
for the 132 intermediate valve stations is presented in the unity 18000 SSI Linear Interpolation
plot shown in Figure 6(a), (b), (c), and (d), where the SSI for
each of 132 valve stations is predicted using the API RP1176, 16000

CEPA, SSI Linear Interpolation and Pressure Range Linear 14000

Interpolation models, respectively. Figure 6 indicates that

Predicted SSI (cycles/yr)

12000
CEPA model generates predictions that are on average closer to
the unity line and have a tighter distribution along the unity 10000

line. API RP1176 model and Pressure Range Linear 8000

Interpolation model generate similar predictions. SSI Linear
Interpolation model generates predictions on average much 6000

further away from the unity line and has the largest scatter 4000

compared with the other three models. 2000

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Actual SSI (cycles/yr)

(c) SSI Linear Interpolation model

5 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

 20000 Table 2: Probabilistic Characteristics of Model Error
1:1 Line
18000
Pressure Range Linear Interpolation Model
16000 Pressure
Parameters API RP SSI Linear Range
14000 CEPA
1176 Interpolation Linear
Predicted SSI (cycles/yr)

12000 Interpolation
Distribution Lognormal
10000 Frechet Frechet Frechet
type (3P)
8000 =0.68275
Parameters =4.2383 =4.7544 =4.233
=0.0077
6000 in the PDF =1.3815 =1.3016 =1.3803
=0.8341
4000
Mean 1.671 1.537 2.101 1.670
2000
COV 35% 32% 44% 35%
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 The probability density function (PDF) of model error
Actual SSI (cycles/yr)
associated with the API RP1176, CEPA, SSI Linear
(d) Pressure Range Linear Interpolation model Interpolation and Pressure Range Linear Interpolation models is
shown in Figure 7(a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively. For clarity,
Figure 6: Unity plot of SSI Comparison the PDF and cumulative distribution function (CDF), denoted
by f(x) and F(x), respectively, are also shown on the graph with
To quantify the prediction accuracy and precision of the
their respective distribution parameters shown in Table 2.
models, the model error was then calculated. The probabilistic
These distributions can be applied to the probabilistic fitness-
characteristics of the model error, including mean value,
for-service (FFS) assessment program for explicitly accounting
coefficient of variation (COV) and best-fit distribution type,
for the uncertainties of model error. For example, FFS
associated with each of the four models were derived using the
assessment of dents or cracks on liquid pipelines using
132 data points shown in Figure 6 and are shown in Table 2. In
probabilistic assessment method.
addition, the values of the parameters involved in the
probability density function (PDF) of the distribution are also
include in Table 2 for facilitating the application of these
distributions. Results as shown in Table 2 can also be used to
quantitatively compare the accuracy and precision of the four
models. The following observations are made:
Firstly, the CEPA model among the four models considered
has the lowest mean value (or bias) of 1.537 and the lowest
COV value of 32%, which indicates that the CEPA model is the
most accurate and precise model in predicting the SSI
compared with the other three models.
Secondly, both the mean and COV values associated with
the API RP1176 model and Pressure Range Linear Interpolation
model have negligible differences. This demonstrates that the (a) API RP1176 model
elevation does not affect pressure change and can be ignored
for simplicity.
Lastly, SSI Linear Interpolation model has the highest
mean and COV values indicating this model has the poorest
accuracy and precision among the four models. This suggests
that a non-linear decay model characterizes the SSI better than
a linear decay model. For example, the CEPA model described
in Section 3.2 explicitly uses a non-linear function to
characterize the decay of SSI and the other two models
described in Sections 3.1 and 3.4 assume the pressure range
follows a linear decay function which implies SSI follows a
non-linear decay function considering the relationship between
SSI and pressure range represented by the Miner’s rule. (b) CEPA model

6 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

 all unrestrained ranges, number of cycles for each
dents range)
 Stress magnification factor
(pressure range-dependent)
 S-N curve
 D, t, grade, dent depth
 3D in-line inspection (ILI)
geometric data
 Max pressure
 Min pressure
Level 1
 Pressure @ ILI
(c) SSI Linear Interpolation model  Number of cycles corresponding
to pressure range
 Shape parameter-dependent S-N
curve

Assessment
 D, t, grade, dent depth
 3D ILI geometric data
 Pressure range bins (maximum
pressure, minimum pressure,
Level 2 pressure range, number of cycles
for each range)
 Pressure @ ILI
 Shape parameter-dependent S-N
curve
(d) Pressure Range Linear Interpolation model  D, t, grade (strain-stress curve)
 3D ILI geometric data
Figure 7: PDF of model error Level 3
 Pressure range and its
5. APPLICATION corresponding number of cycles
This section presents the process of how to apply the In Table 3, each fatigue assessment methodology may
pressure decay models in the FFS assessment. The Paris law is require different input of pressure characteristics as indicated
commonly used for crack fatigue assessment, which requires by the italicized texts. Regardless of the pressure input for
the input of a pre-determined constant pressure range and its fatigue assessment of crack or dent, the process considering the
corresponding equivalent number of cycles on an annual basis. location specific pressure cycling to evaluate the fatigue life of
For dent fatigue assessment, API RP1183 recommends a given pipeline is described as follows:
different screening and assessment methodologies as shown in  Step 1: identify the upstream and downstream pump
Table 3, where D and t denote the pipe outside diameter and stations for a given pipeline section and determine the
wall thickness, respectively. geospatial data associated with each pump station;
Table 3: Summary of dent fatigue assessment methodologies  Step 2: collect the discharge pressure data from the
recommended in API RP1183 upstream pump station and suction pressure data from the
downstream pump station with a predetermined acquisition
Type Method Input frequency (e.g., one minute) and a duration period (e.g., one
 Dent depth year);
SSI  SSI @ annual 13ksi (or 90MPa)  Step 3: run the Rainflow counting analysis to calculate
hoop stress cycles the SSID and SSIS corresponding to predetermined pressure
 D/t ratio ranges. Typically, the pressure range is determined based on a
Level 0 for hoop stress range of 90MPa or 13ksi and the pipe attributes at
 Restrained condition
Screening

shallow the location of interest. Some other pressure characteristics

 Stress magnification factor
restrained and such as the maximum pressure or pressure histogram can also
(pressure range-independent)
all unrestrained be output from this analysis for the fatigue assessment, as
dents  SSI
 S-N curve required (e.g., Table 3);
Level 0.5 for  D/t ratio  Step 4: calculate the SSI at the location of interest,
shallow  Restrained condition SSII, using the selected pressure decay models based on SSID
and SSIS determined from Step 3;
restrained and  Pressure range bins (pressure

7 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

  Step 5: select fatigue assessment methodology and
determine the input of required pressure characteristics using
the discharge pressure spectrum from the upstream pump
station and run fatigue assessment to calculate the fatigue life,
denoted by FL, and
 Step 6: determine the fatigue life of pipeline at the
location of interest by FL×SSII/SSID. This relationship is
established based on the fact that fatigue lives are inversely
linearly proportional to the quantity of SSI [1].
The ease of use of this process is that it only requires the
interpolated SSI and does not require the interpolated pressure
spectrum. The benefit of this process is that it facilitates the
entire fatigue assessment process and avoids the data
synchronization requirement for pressure interpolation.
6. SUMMARY
A comparison of different models that characterize the
reduction or decay of liquid pipeline pressure severity along the
length of a give pipeline section was carried out in this study.
The pressure spectrum severity indicator (SSI) is used to
characterize the pressure severity. A total of four models
namely the API RP1176 model, CEPA model, SSI Linear
Interpolation model and Pressure Range Linear Interpolation
model were considered in this study. To compare the accuracy
and precision of the four models, the pressure spectra
associated with 132 intermediate valve stations were collected.
For a given intermediate valve station, the pressure spectra over
the same time period from the end of its immediate upstream
pump station and suction end of its immediate downstream
pump station were also collected. The Rainflow counting
technique was used to evaluate the SSI of each pressure
spectrum.
To assess the prediction accuracy and precision of the four
pressure decay models and assess their model errors, the SSI at
the valve location is firstly predicted using the pressure decay
models based on the SSI values of the upstream discharge and
downstream suction pressure spectra and then is compared with
the actual SSI based on the spectrum from the intermediate
valve station.
The comparative study demonstrated that the CEPA model
has the best accuracy and precision in characterizing the
pressure decay along the length of a given pipeline section, and
in a descending order followed by Pressure Range Linear
Interpolation model, API RP1176 model, and SSI Linear
Interpolation model. The analysis also demonstrated that the
effect of elevation on the decay of SSI is negligible. A fitness-
for-service assessment program for liquid pipeline can
incorporate the probabilistic characteristics of the model error
associated with each of the four models were derived based on
the 132 sets of pressure data. The outcomes from this study
allow pipeline operators to adopt more accurate and precise
models and improve their integrity decisions by reducing
unnecessary costs while maintaining safety.
8 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to acknowledge the constructive
comments provided by Mike Reed and Pauline Chee as well as
the other SMEs from TC Energy. All helpful comments from
the anonymous reviewers are also appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] Semiga, V., Dinovitzer, A., and Tiku, S.. 2016, “Location
Specific Pipeline Cyclic Pressure” Report (Reference:
30424.DFR (Rev. 01)) submitted to Canadian Energy
Pipeline Associated by BMT Fleet Technology Limited.
[2] Kiefner, J.F., Kolovich, C.E., Zelenak, P.A. and Wahjudi T.
2004, “Estimating Fatigue Life for Pipeline Integrity
Management” Proceedings of the 2004 5th International
Pipeline Conference, Oct 4 – 8, 2004, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, IPC2004-0167.
[3] Semiga, V., Dinovitzer, A., Tiku, S. and Vignal G. 2018,
“Liquid Pipeline Location Specific Cyclic Pressure
Determination” Proceedings of the 2018 12th International
Pipeline Conference, September 24 – 28, 2018, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, IPC2018-78717.
[4] Zhou, W. and Huang, G.X. 2012. Model Error Assessments
of Burst Capacity Models for Corroded Pipelines.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 99-
100: 1–8.
[5] Jason Yan, Shenwei Zhang Shahani Kariyawasam, Maria
Pino, Taojun Liu. Validate Crack Assessment Models with
in-Service and Hydrotest Failures. Proceedings of the 2018
12th International Pipeline Conference, September 24 – 28,
2018, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, IPC2018-78251.
[6] ASTM E1049 – 85(2011) e1. Standard Practices for Cycle
Counting in Fatigue Analysis, ASTM.
[7] API RP1183. Assessment and Management of Pipeline
Dents, 2020, API.
[8] API RP 1176. Recommended Practice for Assessment and
Management of Cracking in Pipelines, 2016, API.