Proceedings of the 14th International Pipeline Conference

ASME IPC2022
September 26 – September 30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2022-81585

PUMP STATION DESIGN II: A TALE OF TWO PUMP STATIONS

Jim Horner

AscenTech Engineering
New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
jimhorner004@gmail.com

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
IPC 2014-33740 [1], Pump Station Design, summarized the BEP Best Efficiency Point
work Enbridge had completed on the design and construction of CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
65 new pump stations and the modification of a further 16 CSD Compact Station Design
existing stations. The $4.0 billion dollar scope was completed D Pipe length expressed in pipe diameters
over a 12-year period, with the last stations being completed in DF Design Frequency
2019. This paper documents the application of this body of work Dilbit Diluted Bitumen
on the Keystone XL Pipeline project for TC Energy. This work FEA Finite Element Analysis
included the design of 32 new pump stations. HPF High Pressure and Flow piping
The Keystone XL project experienced delays due to legal and Hz Frequency expressed in cycles/second
regulatory challenges which gave TC Energy the opportunity to NPS Nominal Pipe Size
reevaluate their pump station design. The previous design was MNF Mechanical Natural Frequency
piping centric and had a significant footprint. The station design PCD Piping Centric Design
developed for Enbridge was more equipment centric, and owing PCV Pressure Control Valve
to the compact layout, presented the potential for cost savings in ppmW Concentration in parts per million by weight
excess of $140 million for their project. This paper provides a SBC Small Bore Connections
unique perspective with which to evaluate the design TRB Transportation Research Board
philosophies employed by comparing the two station designs TRV Thermal Relief Valve
developed independently. VPF Vane Pass Frequency
While the basic design was proven, new work was completed Δm Lateral variation in mass flow
to validate the new application. This effort demonstrated that σT standard deviation of the tangential velocity
these pump stations are a unique piping subset. The operating
temperature is relatively modest, but the piping is exposed to 1. INTRODUCTION
high pressure and high flow rates (HPF). Prolonged operation This paper compares two pump station designs: one piping
with high turbulence and pressure can result in fatigue related centric and the other equipment centric. The piping centric
failures. These HPF piping systems require additional tools for approach uses typical plant piping layout strategies to minimize
their design. These analytical techniques include: piping stresses and provide adequate pipe lengths between
• Erosion studies to validate limiting velocities and pipe sizing various piping elements based on rules of thumb. This approach
will be referred to as a Piping Centric Design or PCD.
• Dynamic piping analysis to minimize potential vibration due
to beat frequencies and pressure pulsations The equipment centric approach is based on arranging the
• Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of small-bore connections to piping to allow better access to the equipment and provide a
minimize the potential for fatigue related damage. more compact layout. This approach will be referred to as a
Compact Station Design or CSD. The term compact is
• Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) studies to minimize significant in that the principle objective of this design was to
the impact of pump suction turbulence on pump performance. minimize the piping footprint to improve the potential for
Keywords: B-Gap, CFD, CSD, Erosion, FEA, Modal containment and leak detection. The philosophy is to make the
Analysis, Pulsation, MNF, SBC, VPF piping serve the station design rather than making the piping the
focus of the design effort.

1 © 2019 by ASME
 Unit Bypass
Check Valve
Unit The scale for this
CSD Piping Plan Isolation Valve elevation section
(Discharge) has been increased
for clarity

Sump
Tank CSD Side Elevation Section

Drain System
Sump Tank
Both piping plans are
the same scale

PCD Piping Plan

Drain System

Figure 1: PCD and CSD Layout Comparison

This paper starts with a description and comparison of the
two different designs followed by a review of the engineering
completed to validate the CSD approach.
2. COMPARISON OF DESIGNS
A plan view of the two designs is included in Figure 1. A
casual inspection of the two designs shows that the CSD has a
significantly smaller footprint. Indeed, it can provide cost
savings in excess of $4.4 million per station. The PCD design
has a flat piping arrangement with all piping at the same
elevation. This means the piping is a barrier to access some of
the equipment.
2.1 Site Development Requirements
The smaller footprint of the CSD led to a reduction in site
development requirements. This also meant that the containment
pond size could be reduced. While the positioning of the pond
varied depending on site specific conditions, the smaller size
coupled with the smaller station footprint led to an increase in
construction laydown space and a reduction in site development
costs. These savings were obtained through a:
• 40% reduction in clearing, and rough grading;
• 25% reduction in piling requirements;
• 40% reduction in structural steel; and

The CSD creates access by elevating the pumps and • 50% reduction in cable and tray lengths.
providing an access platform. All the pumps, motors and sump
appurtenances are closer together and readily accessible from a 2.2 Material Requirements
common platform. The pumps and drivers are elevated by Table 2.2 shows that the amount of material used in the CSD
bringing the foundation mass aboveground. The 4,950 kW (6000 as compared to the PCD. It should be noted that the CSD used
HP) pump and motor weight 26,260 kg (29 tons), so the required predominately NPS 24 pipe while the PCD used NPS 30 pipe.
foundation mass is significant. The pipe sizing criteria will be discussed later, but the size
reduction is an integral part of the design.
The PCD piping arrangement requires a series of stiles to get
over the piping to access some of the critical components. Most Table 2.2: Station Material Requirements
of the foundation mass is located below grade which requires Flange
added excavation to form up the foundations instead being able Station Pipe (m) Elbows Tees
Pairs
to form from grade. It also creates added delays as the PCD (NPS 30) 455.7 44 10 19
excavation cannot be backfilled until the foundation has cured
CSD (NPS 24) 178.8 30 10 1
sufficiently to strip the forms.
2 © 2019 by ASME
 The CSD has only 40% of the piping used in the PCD and it
is smaller. The PCD requires 14 extra elbows and 18 extra flange
pairs to facilitate prefabrication. The CSD arrangement does not
include additional fittings to facilitate prefabrication but does
include a single flange pair on the discharge header to provide a
break to facilitate future expansion of the station piping.
2.3 Welding Requirements
Table 2.3 shows that the PCD requires 166% more welding
than the CSD. This is due to the smaller pipe size and the lower
number of welded joints in the CSD.
Table 2.3: Welding Requirements
Weld Length
Station Welded Joints
(cm/in)
PCD (NPS 30) 269 63,500/25,000
CSD (NPS 24) 188 38,100/15,000
The PCD design has 18 extra flange pairs to facilitate
prefabrication because of the long spool lengths. The CSD
arrangement does not include additional flanges; the piping has
enough natural breaks at unit isolation valves and unit check
valves to allow prefabrication of the suction header. Two field
welds are typically required on each pump riser and a couple
more on the discharge header.
2.4 Station Piping Volume
Table 2.4 shows the volumes contained by the station piping.
The PCD’s volume is almost 2.5 times that of the CSD. The CSD
is less than half the volume of the comparable segments in the
PCD piping except for the bypass piping. The lower volume in
the PCD by-pass piping is obtained by additional elbows used to
create an offset in the unit piping. The CSD design by-pass
volume could be reduced to half the PCD design by adding an
offset with one additional elbow.
Table 2.4: Station Piping Volumes
2.5 Drain System
Table 2.4 also shows the volumes that might be involved in a
complete station drain down. If the unit isolation valves are
closed, there is still a significant volume contained by the
remainder of the aboveground station piping (by-pass and header
piping). There is 87.4 m3 (23,090 US Gal.) in the PCD piping
and 48.8 m3 (12,890 US Gal.) in the CSD piping. If the unit lines
are included, these volumes double. Even the minimum volumes
are too great to be contained in the PCD 38 m3 (10,000 US Gal.)
underground sump tank.
Pumping the sump contents into the mainline concurrent with
a station drain down is problematic because the station would
have to be isolated from the mainline. The injection pump
connection is normally inside the station isolation valves on the
station suction. Connecting the sump reinjection directly to the
mainline is not typical practice due to the potential consequences
of a leak from this secondary, small-bore mainline connection.
Table 2.5 gives an indication of the extent of the drain
systems (shown in red in Figure 1). The PCD drain header is
almost twice the length of the CSD header and the total drain
system has almost 4 times the amount of pipe as the CSD. The
PCD drain system has at least 16 more connections to the main
process piping, or primary containment, to facilitate a complete
drain down. The sump cannot accommodate the total volume. A
buried sump is also below the station piping; and susceptible to
overflow if too much of the piping is drained. This also means
there are 16 additional low point drains or high potential leak
sources that can collect water and sediment.
Table 2.5: Drain System Piping
Station System Component Sizes Length (m)
NPS 4 Header 98.8
10 – NPS 3 Unit Line drain connections 33.6
PCD 6 – NPS 3 Lateral drain connections 34.9
10 – NPS 2 drain connections (from pump) 109.0

Piping PCD CSD Total 386.5

Segment (m3) (US Gal.) (m3) (US Gal.) NPS 4 Header 52
Unit Lines 124.2 32,810 38.5 10,150 CSD 10 - NPS 2 drain laterals (from pump) 54
By-Pass 8.8 2,310 10.6 2,800 Total 106
Headers 78.6 20,750 38.2 10,150
The entire volume of station piping could not be contained in
Total 211.6 55,860 136.1 23,100 a typical sump; therefore, auxiliary containment would be
required to purge the station piping or any significant portion.
The most significant volume is the 124.2/5 = 24.8 m3 (6,560 This would take the form of vacuum trucks and/or temporary
US Gal.) per pump contained in the PCD unit lines compared to tanks. The realization that the station piping needed to be
the 38.5/5 = 7.7 m3 (2,035 US Gal.) per pump contained in the drained very infrequently led to a rethinking of the drain system.
CSD. The PCD unit lines are flat, therefore all the 24.8 m3 would
The CSD has simplified the drain system and eliminated the
have to be purged to allow simple pump maintenance such as a
additional drain connections. The drain system is limited to the
seal replacement. Due to the elevated positioning of the pumps
collection of fluid from pump case drain downs, leakage from
in the CSD, only about 1.9 m3 (500 US Gal.) of the 7.7 m3 (2,035
the pump seals and collection of minor discharges from thermal
US Gal.) needs to be purged to drain the pump. This in turn
relief valves. This requires a smaller sump and eliminates
reduces the required sump volume.
several rarely used, high risk drain connections.

3 © 2019 by ASME
 The elevated pumps allow the drain header to be kept
aboveground and supported from the pump platform. This
eliminates any buried station piping. The elevated pumps also
allow for gravity drainage to an aboveground sump tank. This
minimizes the potential for a sump tank overflow as most of the
piping is below the sump tank. Only volumes from the pumps
and their adjacent piping can be drained to the sump by gravity.
3. FLUID DYNAMICS
The size of pipeline pumps has increased significantly as
pipeline capacities have increased. The power level of an early
station, pumping 1,660 m3/hr (250,000 BPD) was about 6 MW
(8,000 HP). 26 MW (35,000 HP) stations are now common. As
the power levels increased, the misdirected energy resulting from
pumping inefficiencies increased proportionately. This
manifests as temperature increases, noise, pressure pulsations
and vibration.
The power piping codes have identified a special class of
piping referred to as High Energy Piping (HEP). This includes
piping operating above 400°C (750°) and 7,100 kPa (1,025 psi).
Prolonged operation at elevated temperatures and pressures can
result in metallurgical degradation and creep related failures.
Pump station piping systems operate at modest temperatures,
but they do operate at high pressures and uniquely high flow
rates. They can be categorized as high pressure and flow (HPF)
systems. Prolonged operation under high turbulence and
pressure can result in fatigue related failures.
A cursory review of the two piping configurations shows that
the CSD layout has been developed to help minimize turbulence.
The CSD unit piping has only two elbows on the suction and
discharge while the PCD has three. The discharge of the CSD
pump is directed to the suction of the following pump through
two elbows instead of turning through two Tees. This improves
the suction header flexibility while reducing the pressure drop
and turbulence.
3.1 Impeller Design
Pressure pulsations, as discussed here, are fluctuations in the
basic pressure being developed by a pump. These pulsations can
sometimes cause damage, but do not receive a lot of attention
because they aren’t typically detrimental to the pump’s test-stand
performance. The severity of pressure pulsations cannot be
determined merely by their presence or even magnitude, but
rather by their effect upon system components or operations.
A pressure pulse is developed as each impeller vanes pass the
volute lip reaching a maximum value when the vane tip passes
this point. When the vane tip is adjacent to the volute lip, the
maximum amount of energy in the form of liquid in motion is
directed toward the discharge nozzle. At any other point between
vane tips, the opening between the vane and volute lip is larger
and, consequently, some of the liquid (and inherent energy)
“slips by” under the volute lip and is recirculated through the
pump. The change from minimum to maximum transfer of
energy to the discharge results in a corresponding variation in the
discharge pressure which constitutes the pressure pulsation.
The magnitude of the pressure pulsations is at a minimum
near the pump’s BEP (best efficiency point) flow rate and
increases as flow rates vary from the BEP. The pulsation level is
affected by several pump design parameters such as:
• The radial gap at the impeller/vane tip (B Gap, Figure 2);
• The impeller vane design and geometry;
• The number of vanes and volute lips; and
• The piping layout (e.g. acoustic resonances, intake swirl).
Volute
Lip
B-Gap
Pump
Discharge
Volute
Lip
Figure 2: B-Gap
The B-Gap has probably the most significant impact on the
magnitude of pressure pulsations. Kumar [2] reported a 62%
reduction in in vibration by increasing the B-Gap 51% in a single
volute, double suction pump. Guelich and Bolleter [3]
recommend a minimum B-Gap of 4%. Spence et al [4]
recommend a minimum of 6% and Block [5] recommends 5%.
The Keystone XL pump’s B-Gap is 10%.
The vane tip design also has a significant impact on the
pressure pulsations. Sudo [6] and others have reported pulsation
reductions as high as 75% with staggered vanes as compared to
inline vane tips. Figure 3 shows a 3S impeller where the vane
tips have been split and staggered so only one half passes the
volute lip at a time. The vane tips are also skewed so that only a
portion of the vane tip passes the volute lip at a time (3S - split,
staggered, skewed).
Corbo [7] and Stearns [8] indicate that increasing the number
of vanes can reduce pressure pulsations providing there is an odd
number. An even number with a double volute pump will
increase the magnitude of the pulsations as opposed vanes pass
each volute lip simultaneously causing constructive
reinforcement between the two pulses. The Keystone pump has
a 3S impeller with 7 vanes.
4 © 2019 by ASME
 The pump vendor, Sulzer, proposed an acceptance criterion
that favored a balanced flow distribution for their double suction
Vane
Tip Impeller pump. The criteria included:
Shroud
• The difference in mass flow between the two sides of the
vertical centerline (lateral flow variation, Δm) should be
less than 3%.
• The standard deviation of the tangential velocity or swirl
(σT) should be less than 5% of the axial velocity.
Impeller Impeller
Eye Eye The CFD model included all piping from the discharge of one
pump to the suction of the downstream pump. The axial velocity,
tangential velocity, and lateral flow variation were modeled at
several sections downstream of the last elbow into the pump
suction. ANSI/HI 9.6.6 does allow relief from their straight pipe
recommendation if a conditioning element is used. Therefore, a
Wear piping configuration with an off-the-shelf, metering system
Ring conditioning element (Canadian Pipeline Accessories model
Central
65E) was also modeled. This preliminary study showed that the
Web
baseline flow pattern did not meet the acceptance criteria. It did
find that the conditioning element was effective in reducing the
swirl sufficiently to meet the acceptance criteria.
Figure 3: 3S Impeller Design
Further modeling was completed using a 3rd party analyst,
3.2 Station Head Loss Jacobs Technology, because the pump vendor was unable to
The pressure drop through the CSD is roughly the same as model more complex geometries. It is common for pipeline
PCD design in spite the smaller piping size. An exact companies to install a permanent strainer at each pump suction
comparison is difficult because field measurements have shown consisting of a section of grating welded into a spacer ring. The
that the pressure drop is lower than predicted by modelling. grating usually consists of 25 mm (1”) by 6.4 mm (0.25”) bearing
Standard modelling methodologies use Resistance Coefficients bars on 30 mm (1 3/16”) centers. The spacer ring is the installed
(K), Equivalent Lengths (L/D) and Flow Coefficients (CV) to between flanges. An alternate design with 75 mm (3”) deep bars
characterize fitting hydraulic resistance. Individual fitting losses arranged in a grid pattern separated by 38 mm (1.5”) of clear
are added to determine the aggregate system loss. Murakami et. space was also tested (Figure 4).
Al. [9] found that multiple fittings depending on their proximity
and relative orientation can have a lower aggregate pressure drop
than can be calculated simply as the sum of individual losses.
Zardin et. Al. [10] found that “The velocity field is strongly
affected by the relative position of two elbows: when the distance
L between the elbows is less than 5D, the two elbows strongly
influence each other, and total pressure drops are very different
to the one obtained by twice the loss on one elbow”.
The unit lines consist of a concentrated group of 7 to 9 fittings
that are within 2D to 3D of each other. Measured pressures
losses are less than 50% of the calculated result. This compact
arrangement provides the added benefit of reducing the pressure
loss through the station piping.
3.3 Computational Fluid Dynamics
The CSD has less than 2D of straight pipe adjacent to the
pump inlet proceeded by 2 perpendicular elbows. ANSI/HI
9.6.6-2016 [9] recommends a minimum of 4D to 5D of straight
pipe at the pump inlet after a long radius elbow. To alleviate any
concern that a shorter length might create an adverse flow pattern
into the pump a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) study was
undertaken. The original study was completed by the pump
vendor and subsequent studies were completed by 3rd party
analysts. Figure 4: Grid Conditioning Element

5 © 2019 by ASME
 The grating strainer improved the flow over the baseline case
but required 3D of straight pipe to meet the acceptance criteria.
The grid conditioner performed better than the CPA conditioner,
but both devices exceeded the acceptance criteria. Table 3.3
shows that baseline case does not meet the acceptance criteria,
but the grid conditioner results are well below the criteria as
illustrated by the streamlines in Figures 5 & 6. The pressure drop
through each device was the same, about 30 kPa (4.4 psi).
Table 3.3: CFD Results
Baseline Case Grid Conditioner
Location
Δm σT (m/s) Δm σT (m/s)
1D 4.13 % 0.496 0.41 % 0.095
2D 4.92 % 0.444 0.78 % 0.011
200 cSt, median flow rate 6.86 m/s, 5% of axial velocity is 0.341
Table 3.3 results were based on a viscosity of 200 cSt and a
flow rate of 7,154 m3/hr (1,080,000 BPD). Δm and σT increase
slightly when the viscosity decreases to 100 cSt, but the results
are still within the acceptance criteria. The piping design was
adjusted to place a flange pair at the outlet of the upper elbow
turning into the pump suction. The results indicate that the grid
conditioner would be as effective if placed at the suction nozzle.
Figure 5:Baseline Streamlines
0D
1D
2D
Figure 6: Grid Conditioner Streamlines
Figure 7 shows another notable trend. The Δm improves as
the position moves closer to the elbow. This agrees with the
findings in the PRCI Report PR-471-16206 [11] on “Suction
Piping Effects on Pump Performance Testing”. That report
found that a suction piping configuration like the CSD layout
with the outlet of the upper elbow placed at the pump suction
nozzle improved the measured pump performance.
5%
Lateral Mass Flow
Variation (Δm)
4%
Increasing Flow Rate
3%
Variation Limit
2%
Towards Elbow
1%
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Distance From Elbow Outlet (D)
Figure 7: Lateral Mass Flow Variation (NPS 24 Pipe)
Figure 7 shows another benefit of reducing pipe size. As the
flow rate and associated velocity increases the lateral flow
variation improves. A reduction in velocity created by an
increase in pipe size increases the lateral flow variation. This
suggests the smaller size has better turn-down characteristics.
3.4 Pipe Sizing
Pipe size has a profound impact on piping design. It affects
the cost, the flexibility, and has been discussed the layout
footprint and piping volume. A reduction in pipe size from NPS
30 to 24, can reduce pump station construction costs by millions.
As the piping size increases it becomes more rigid which has
significant implications for piping flexibility. Optimizing the
pipe size has many benefits for the pump station design.
A fundamental criterion used in sizing process piping is to
define the ultimate velocity to which the piping should be
subjected, referred to as the limiting velocity. Research Report
115 [12] by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), a UK
government agency, provides a good summary of the
considerations involved in determining a limiting velocity.
If design constraints such as pressure drop, temperature rise
or power limits do not govern, the main concern in hydrocarbon
production systems is erosion. Potential erosion mechanisms
include particulate erosion, liquid droplet erosion, erosion-
corrosion, and cavitation. Report 115 [12] indicates that particles
are the most common source of erosion in hydrocarbon systems.
Sand erosion in smooth and straight pipes is normally low
and typically not the limiting factor with respect to erosion risk.
The main reason for the low erosion is the low impact angle of
erosive particles (i.e. the particle streamlines tend to be parallel
to the pipe walls). The internal surfaces of fittings that change
the flow direction or accelerate the flow will be impacted by the
entrained particles. These fittings are evaluated separately to
determine the limiting velocity they might impose.
Historically API RP 14E [13] has been relied on to provide a
limiting velocity. Based on the work of Salama [14] and others,
Research Report 115 [12] concludes that the recommendations
given in API RP 14E [13] are highly conservative for onshore
piping systems. Under the sponsorship of Det Norske Veritas, a
joint industry project developed the recommended practice
DNVGL-RP-0501, “Managing Sand Production and Erosion”
[15]. This recommended practice provides a rational basis for
determining erosion risk through calculations developed for
governing piping components such as elbows, tees, and reducers.
6 © 2019 by ASME
 The critical parameters in the erosive flow analysis include
flow rate, fluid properties such as viscosity and density,
allowable surface thickness loss (E), design life (TL), and
entrained sediment characteristics such as erosive particle
diameter (dP), and erosive particle concentration (EP).
Characteristics of entrained sediments, such as the size,
shape, mass, and hardness of solid particles, are seldom reported
in standard crude oil assays. Research Report 115 indicates that
with sand exclusion measures in place that sand particle sizes
should not exceed 100 microns. The Transportation Research
Board (TRB) Special Report 311 [16] found a median particle
size of 5.6 microns in dilbit samples tested with a maximum that
ranged from 11 to 92 microns. Therefore, a 100-micron particle
size (dP) was assumed to be sufficiently conservative.
Sediment particle concentrations are routinely tested, but
these results do not distinguish between erosive particles like
quartz sand and non-erosive particles such as clay fines and
mineral salts. TRB Special Report 311 [16] found that silicate
particles are more abundant in dilbit and accounted for 13% to
45% of solids, but the total level of sediments did not exceed 350
ppmW. This suggests a maximum erosive particle concentration
of 45% of 350, = 157.5 ppmW.
TC Energy had found a median erosion rate of 0.056 mm/yr
(0.0022 in/yr) in station piping elbows. The DNVGL
methodology estimates an erosive particle concentration of 210
ppmW yields an erosion rate of 0.056 mm/yr based on historic
operating conditions and an erosive particle size of 100 microns.
The acceptable erosion rate (EL,Y) can be derived from a
required design life (TL) and the allowable thickness loss (E) per
the following relationship.
𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿,𝑌𝑌 = 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿 = 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 1
𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿 𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿,𝑌𝑌
The piping specifications for PN 100, NPS 24 pipe require a
material Grade 414 (X60) pipe and a 12.7 mm wall thickness.
The wall thickness required to withstand Hoop Stress at MOP is
10.16 mm. Therefore, the allowable surface thickness loss or
erosion allowance (E) is 12.7 – 10.16 = 2.55 mm.
The erosion rates calculated for elbows and reducers are
given in Table 3.4 (dP = 100 μm, EP = 210 ppmW). These results
were based on a flow rate of 7,154 m3/hr (1,080,000 BPD). The
design life (TL) is obtained by dividing the erosion limit (E) by
the erosion rate (EL,Y). The elbow erosion rate is acceptable, but
the reducer wall thickness was increased to improve design life.
Table 3.4: Erosion Calculation Results
Erosion Rate, EL,Y Design Life, TL
Fittings
(mm/yr) (yr)
Elbow 0.052 49.0
20 x 24 Reducer 0.131 19.5
4. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Flexibility analysis is performed to investigate the effect of
bending moments caused by thermally induced expansion and
contraction, and other imposed displacements. The related stress
analysis is carried out to find the sustained (primary) stresses,
displacement (secondary) stresses, pipe support loads and
equipment loading due to loads caused by the internal static
pressure, deadweight, and other sustained loads. These static
analyses are considered mandatory for large bore piping systems.
Dynamic analysis is performed to investigate the effect of
vibration and other dynamic displacements. The related stress
analysis is carried out to determine the potential for vibration
induced fatigue. These dynamic analyses are a developing field
of study with some recommended practices [17-19] but their
requirement is only starting to be implemented in the major
piping codes. These dynamic analyses should be considered
mandatory for HPF piping systems.
Energy Institute [17] guidelines provide some guidance on
when dynamic analysis should be considered for the main piping
system. Figure 8 illustrates the flow induced vibration
assessment for stiffly supported piping. The assessment
quantifies the turbulent energy generated by the fluid flow in the
form of a Likelihood of Failure (LOF) index. A detailed analysis
is recommended for piping that exceeds the medium fatigue risk
threshold of 0.3.
1.0
High
0.8 Fatigue Risk
0.6
NPS 20
LOF
Medium
0.4 Fatigue Risk
NPS 24
0.2 NPS 30
Low Fatigue Risk
0.0
200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Flow (BPD)
Figure 8: Turbulence Induced Vibration Risk
Dynamic analysis has two areas of concern. The main
concern during the early design phase is the large bore or main
process piping. As the detailed design progresses, the small-bore
connections (SBC) to the main piping are evaluated separately
using a different set of analytical tools.
Historically, dynamic analysis took the form of a modal
analysis with an extended finite element model of the main
process piping to determine the piping mechanical natural
frequencies (MNFs). This analysis ensures that the piping has
sufficient dynamic stiffness to resist shaking forces caused by
equipment such as the pumps or control valves.
7 © 2019 by ASME
 The dynamic flexibility evaluation of the main piping has
grown to include a forced response analysis to calculate the
vibration and dynamic stress due to shaking forces from pressure
pulsations at a range of frequencies. These pressure pulsations
are typically generated by the pumps.
SBCs should always be analyzed regardless of the LOF
determined for the main piping due to the inherent vulnerability
of these appurtenances. The SBC FEA is employed to determine
the MNF. It also confirms that stresses, due to relative motion of
the SBCs and the piping to which they are connected, are within
design limits. SBCs are defined as a branched connections off
the main piping NPS 2 and smaller [20].
4.1 Modal Analysis
Modal analysis is the study of the dynamic properties of a
system in the frequency domain. Modes are inherent properties
of a structure, and are determined by the material properties
(mass, damping, and stiffness), and boundary conditions of the
structure. Each mode is defined by a MNF, modal damping, and
a mode shape. The purpose of a modal analysis is to find the
shapes and frequencies at which the structure will amplify the
effect of the input forces.
The goal of the modal analysis is to ensure the MNF of the
large bore piping is greater than 10 Hz. This ensures that the
piping has enough dynamic stiffness to resist shaking forces in
the 1 to 7 Hz range caused by beat frequency responses. The
image of the mechanical model in Figure 9 shows the first mode
with a resonant response in the crossover piping at 8.8 Hz.
Figure 9: Piping Layout Mode Shape
The red arrows show the point of maximum displacement or
antinode. The pipe support at this location was stiffened and the
mode shape changed shifting the antinode to the opposite side of
the crossover and increased the MNF to 14.3 Hz.
4.2 Pulsation Analysis
Pressure pulses can travel through a fluid filled pipe
independent of the direction of flow. These pulses travel at the
speed of sound in the fluid which is more than 100 times the flow
velocity. A series of pulses is said to form a standing wave
pattern superimposed on the normal flow. These pulsations can
reflect off solid objects like closed valves. If the distance
through the fluid path between the source and the reflective
surface equals some multiple of the pulsation wavelength this
fluid path is said to be acoustically resonant, and the reflected
pulse will constructively reinforce or amplify the incident pulse.
The vane pass frequency (VPF) is the basic frequency
generated by a centrifugal pump. A pulse is generated each time
a vane tip passes a volute lip. If there are seven (rotating) vanes
in the impeller and one (stationary) volute lip, each complete
revolution of the impeller would generate seven pulses. If it took
one second for the impeller to complete one revolution, the vane
passing frequency would be 7 Hz.
In a perfect centrifugal pump, the VPF and its harmonics would
be the only discrete pulsation frequencies generated. Wnek [21]
states that imperfections in the pump generate additional discrete
frequencies. Pulsations at multiples of the rotational frequency
will appear due to inaccuracies in the impeller's geometric
symmetry or concentricity.
In practice it is challenging to manage the geometric
symmetry of the impeller casting, the pump case casting, and
their assembly. Figure 10 shows the pressure pulsations
measured on discharge of the same make and model pump
proposed for the CSD. Despite the 3S impeller design, there are
pressure pulsations at 2 times the operating speed (30 Hz) and
multiples of the nominal VPF. The 2 times component is a
common pipeline pump characteristic and significant because
pulsations at these frequencies do not dissipate as quickly as the
higher VPF pulsations. Studies by Timouchev and Tourret [22]
show that pulsations at this frequency result from a flaw or lack
of symmetry with one of the impeller vanes. The errant vane will
interact out of sequence twice a cycle in a double volute pump.
Figure 10: Discharge Pressure Pulsations
The pulsation variation is less than 2% of the pump ΔP, but
these minor fluctuations in an incompressible fluid can generate
significant alternating stresses in the piping. The pulsation
analysis of the CSD indicated that the bypass check valve could
reflect pulses emanating from the pump. Figure 11 shows the
pipe segments where acoustic resonances could develop.
Changes to the optimal CSD layout had increased the pipe length
on the suction of the pump. This piping configuration had an
acoustic resonance of 66 Hz. This was too close to 2 x times the
operating speed particularly considering that the variable
frequency drive could overspeed the drive motors. Since the grid
conditioning element could condition the flow with less straight
pipe, the suction piping was collapsed, reducing the suction path
length, and raising its acoustic resonance.
8 © 2019 by ASME

Suction
Interstage
Figure 11: Potential Pathways for Acoustic Resonance
An alternate solution could have been to increase the piping
stiffness by changing the piping support design and spacing.
This becomes problematic because it can be at odds with the
piping flexibility requirements. Figure 12 shows the support
spacing recommendations from the Energy Institute guidelines
[17]. It shows that the TC Energy’s spacing guidelines are
already quite stiff, leaving little room for improvement.
20
Support Spacing (m)
15
10
5 It was assumed that piping shell mode vibrations could be
0 necessitated development of a more complex analytical model
100 200 300 400
Pipe Outside Diameter (mm)
Figure 12: Energy Institute Pipe Support Spacing Guideline
4.3 Small Bore Connections
During startup, shutdown or upset conditions SBCs can be
subjected to a variety of additional forces and represent a weak
point on the primary containment. Increased velocity limits
result in higher flow velocities with correspondingly greater
levels of turbulent energy. Considering this and the
consequences of an SBC failure, the need for and location of
each connection should be reviewed carefully.
SBC analysis includes a FEA of each typical connection to
estimate the MNFs. Design Frequencies (DF) are selected for
each connection depending on the proximity to pulsation
sources. The MNF should exceed the DF to safeguard the SBC
from fatigue failure. If the SBC’s MNF is less than the DF, the
SBC is redesigned to reduce mass, minimize the normal
projection, add bracing, or any combination of these strategies to
stiffen the connection and raise the MNF.
The “Design Guideline for Small Diameter Branch
Connections” [18] recommends a minimum connection Design
Frequency (DF) 20% higher than 2 times running speed for
connections within 25 ft. of the pumps and a DF greater than 15
Hz further from the pumps. These guidelines were adjusted, due
to the TC Energy’s experience with SBC issues attributed to VPF
pulsations, as follows:
• DF of 252 Hz for SBCs within the unit isolation valves
• DF of 72 Hz for SBCs within 25 feet of a PCV
• DF of 15 Hz for SBCs for all other locations.
Discharge
Figure 13: 87.2 Hz Mode Shape for TRV
encountered with an increase in the DF to 252 Hz. This
500 600 700
that incorporated the vibrations of the piping to which the SBCs
are attached. This provides a more accurate model and allows
MNF modes caused by piping vibration to be discounted if the
SBC is moving with the piping (no relative motion). Figure 13
shows the first mode of a thermal relief valve (TRV) at 87.2 Hz.
While the vibration mode is detrimental because the TRV is
moving relative to the pipe, it is above the 72 Hz DF for this
location, so the bracing design is considered adequate. Bracing
of these small-bore connections raises their natural frequencies
and minimizes relative motion with the connected piping.
4.4 Baseplate Design
A more complete discussion on this topic is included in
“Installation of Pipeline Pumps” [23] but it should be mentioned
that the baseplate should also be analyzed for equipment pedestal
resonances. The lowest resonant frequency should be at least
20% higher than 2 times running speed.
Standard baseplate designs are usually wider than required to
allow mounting of ancillary equipment. This type of design
increases the foundation width and moves the perimeter anchor
bolts further from the pump support pedestal bases. To improve
the baseplate stiffness the pump should be mounted separately
on its own baseplate. The anchor bolts should be close to the
pedestal bases to improve stiffness. The foundation should be
stepped such that the motor is mounted on rails grouted directly
to the concrete foundation as shown in Figure 14.
9 © 2019 by ASME

Pump
Support
Pedestal Motor
Baseplate
Figure 14: Stepped Foundation
5. CONCLUSION
Initially, the main objective of this design effort was to reduce
station costs through the application of a more compact station
design. Savings in the order of $4.4 million per station were
realized, but ultimately it became apparent that this HPF piping
system required additional analysis. Other benefits included:
• A significant reduction in the station footprint
• Elimination of the buried sump tank and all buried piping.
• Improved equipment maintainability through a reduction
in drain down volumes.
• Elimination of 16 high risk low point drain connections
for 32 station (512 connections system wide).
• A 75% reduction in the drain piping system and the
associated heat tracing and insulation.
• A method to condition flow into the pump to allow a
reduction in straight piping into the pump suction.
• A reduction in pipe sizing that enhanced piping flexibility
and improved turndown performance.
• Better access by making the station design equipment
centric instead of piping centric.
• Improved design of piping and appurtenances through
various dynamic analysis techniques.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ghazi Bari, Jacobs Technology, Michigan
Ryan Champney, Enbridge, Edmonton
Martin DeBusman, Formerly Jacobs, Edmonton
Joe Dhaliwal, Enbridge, Edmonton
Brandon Doering, TC Energy, Calgary
Chris Harper, Wood VDN, Calgary
Amir Kharazi, Jacobs Technology, Michigan
Rob Ladner, Worley ERC, Edmonton
Kevin Oldham, Worley ERC, Edmonton
REFERENCES
[1] Horner, Jim and DeBusman, Martin. “Pump Station Design”
Proceedings of the 10th International Pipeline Conference,
IPC2014-33740. Calgary, Alberta, September 29 – October 3,
2014.
[2] Kumar, M.N., “Vibration Analysis of Vane Pass Frequency
Vibrations in Single Stage, Single Volute, Between Bearings
Type Pumps”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering,
pp. 85-87, May 2017.
[3] Guelich, J.F., Bolleter, U., “Pressure Pulsations in
Centrifugal Pumps”, ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics,
pp. 272-279, April 1992.
[4] Spence, R., Amaral-Teixeira, J., ”A CFD Parametric Study
of Geometrical Variations on Pressure Pulsations and
Performance Characteristics of a Centrifugal Pump”, Computers
& Fluids, pp. 1243-1257, June 2009.
[5] Block, H.P., “Petrochemical Machinery Insights”, pp. 573-
574, Butterworth Heinemann, 2017
[6] Sudo, S., Komatsu, T., and Kondo, M. (1980). “Pumping
Plant Noise Reduction: Reduction of Pressure Pulsation in Pump
Discharge Pipe Systems.” Hitachi Review vol. 29, No. 5, pp.
217-222.
[7] Corbo, M.A., Stearns, C.F., “Practical Design Against Pump
Pressure Pulsations”, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second
International Pump Users Symposium, pp. 137-177, 2005
[8] ”Rotodynamic Pumps: for pump Piping.” ANSI/HI 9.6.6-
2016, Approved March 23, 2016.
[9] Murakami, M.; Shimizu, Y.; Shiragami, H. Studies on fluid
flow in three-dimensional bend conduits, JSME 1969, 12,
1369–1379.
[10] Zardin, B.; Cillo, G.; Rinaldini, C.A.; Mattarelli, E.;
Borghi, M. Pressure Losses in Hydraulic Manifolds. Energies
2017, 10, 310.
[11] Pipeline Research Council International, PR-471-16206
Report, “Suction Piping Effect on Pump Performance Testing.”
August 2017.
[12] Barton. “Erosion in Elbows in Hydrocarbon Production
Systems.” Research Report 115, UK Health and Safety
Executive. 2003. ISBN-0-7176-2743-8.
[13] “Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of
Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems.” API RP 14E. 5th
edition, 1991 (revised 2000)
[14] Salama. “An Alternative to API 14E Erosional Velocity
Limits for Sand Laden Fluids.” OTC 8898, OTC Conference,
Houston, May 4 – 7, 1998. pp 721-733, 1998.
[15] “Managing Sand Production and Erosion.” DNVGL RP
0501, Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd. August 2015.
[16] “Effects of Diluted Bitumen on Crude Oil Transmission
Pipelines.” Transportation Research Board Special Report 311,
National Research Council of the National Academies. 2013.
Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-0-309-28675-6
[17] “Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue
Failure in Process Pipework”. Energy Institute. Second edition,
2008.
[18] “Design Guideline for Small Diameter Branch Connections,
Release 1”. Gas Machinery Research Council, Pipeline Research
Council International, Southwest Research Institute, March
2011.
10 © 2019 by ASME
[19] “Reciprocating Compressors for Petroleum, Chemical, and
Gas Industry Services.” ANSI/API Standards 618-2008,
Reaffirmed August 2016.
[20] Harper, Chris. “Integrity Evaluation of Small Bore
Connections (Branch Connections).” Proceedings of the 9th
Conference of EFRC, September 10th – 12th, 2014, Vienna
[21] Wnek, T.F., “Pressure Pulsations Generated by Centrifugal
Pumps”, Warren Pumps, 2007
[22] Timoushev, S., and Toureet J., “Numerical Simulation of
BPF Pressure Pulsation Field in Centrifugal Pumps”,
Proceedings of the 19th International Pump Users Symposium,
pp. 85-105, 2002.
[23] Horner, Jim and Savage, Kevin, “Installation of Pipeline
Pumps” Proceedings of the 2nd International Pipeline
Conference, Vol 2, pp 1065-1072. Calgary, Alberta, June 7 – 11,
1998.

11 © 2019 by ASME