Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90005

NEW METHOD FOR IN-TRENCH PIPELINE SUPPORT

Geoff W. Connors, P.Eng. PipeSak Incorporated

London, Ontario, Canada gconnors@pipesak.com +1 519 472 5080

ABSTRACT
i)

Protection of the pipe during and after pipeline construction is of paramount importance for safety and pipeline integrity. Areas of rock and stone are often encountered during construction of new pipelines. Even with modern pipeline coatings, additional protection for the pipe is necessary where rock or stone exposure is significant. Historically, additional pipe protection used in these types of situations is achieved through adding either a significant layer of sand or select backfill above and below the pipeline (sand padding) and/or by attaching a high-impact resistant, poly-type rock shield around the pipeline during the pipeline installation process To accommodate sand padding, some form of intermittent support of the pipeline is generally required to elevate the pipeline off the trench bottom. Similar intermittent support is also recommended practice when using poly-type rock shields to keep the pipeline from fully resting on trench rocks. Current methods of in-trench support involve sand piles, sand bags, spray foam and individually formed foam pillows each with drawbacks:

Sand Piles are difficult to install and often oval or dent the pipe when improperly placed. ii) Sand bags require hand placement for proper support. In open trenches, this can be time consuming and unsafe. Improper placement can cause the pipe to oval or dent. iii) Spray-in foam is considered to be an obstruction of cathodic protection currents. Newly constructed pipelines full of hydrostatic test water and one metre cover can cause foam to compress excessively. iv) Foam pillows are light and easily placed but can float out of position and compress or crack under heavy loads. As with all foam, cathodic shielding is always a concern.

A new, engineered method of in-trench pipeline support is now available - the Structured Pipeline Pillow (SPP). SPPs are injection molded and made from high strength, environmentally inert polypropylene or polyethylene resins. Designed to support any size pipeline, SPPs are most effective with larger diameter, heavier pipelines. One SPP is engineered to carry a single 40 joint of heavy wall pipeline filled with hydrostatic test water. Compared with current methods, SPPs:
i) ii) Stack tightly for transport. Are light enough for installation from outside the trench and resist floatation when ground water is present.

PipePillo Structured Pipeline Pillow

Copyright 2012 by ASME

iii) iv) v) vi) vii)

Help ensure the pipeline is centered in the trench during the pipeline installation. Maintain long-term pipe clearance above rocky trench bottoms. Ovality and denting concerns are reduced. Allow cathodic protection an easy path to the pipeline. Will never biodegrade.

Due to the weight of the pipe and the length of time the pipe may be in this position, care must be taken to ensure the ends of each joint are elevated so the whole length of pipe does not rest on soil. If left to rest on the soil, not only will the pipe have a tendency to roll around, but damage to the pipe coating and eventual corrosion are likely. During the joining process, it is necessary to support each section of pipe even higher off the ground to provide full and easy access around each pipe end for joining. The most prevalent method of supporting pipe during this initial phase outside the trench is with the use of large wooden skids (Figure 2).

In their extended stacking mode, SPPs tested well as an effective alternative to wooden skids for many situations such as pipe stockpiling; stringing along the rights-of-way (ROW); and even for some low level skidding during the welding process. INTRODUCTION The basic process of installing buried pipelines includes the steps of laying out sections of pipe end to end adjacent to the trench, digging a long trench for the pipeline, bending and joining the sections of pipe into a continuous length, placing the pipeline into the trench, backfilling the trench, and hydrotesting the pipeline prior to putting it into service. The pipeline must be held off the ground during each phase of the pipeline assembly process to ensure the expensive coating (and pipe) do not get damaged from the stringing of the ROW; to the joining together of the individual sections of pipe; to the installation of the pipeline in the trench in areas of rock or stone. During the initial stringing of the pipeline along the ROW, individual joints of pipe are unloaded off trucks and laid out end to end in preparation for bending and joining of the pipe (Figure 1).

Figure 2 Skidded-up pipe

Inside the trench, the pipeline does not typically require support. Following trenching, the soil bedding is generally kept stone free. Once placed in service, cathodic protection systems1 are then employed to protect the pipeline and coating over the long term. When rock or stone are unavoidable in the trench, extra steps are required to further protect the pipe. These steps have typically involved the use of either a sand/select backfill around the pipeline or the application of an additional porous poly-type layer fully encircling the pipeline (rock shield). For proper

1 Cathodic protection refers to a low voltage protection current injected into the soil, which is transmitted to the pipe and prevents corrosion at locations where the pipe coating may be damaged, thereby exposing the metal of the pipe to the soil. Electrical contact between the pipe and the soil is generally made through water in the soil.

Figure 1 Pipe strung out on ROW

Copyright 2012 by ASME

installation of these protection methods, the pipeline must be held off the bottom of the trench. This not only protects the bottom of the pipeline from point loads but also allows for the free flow of backfill material into the trench and around the pipeline which is expected to provide the long-term support. CURRENT METHODS USED FOR PIPELINE SUPPORT
A. Out of Trench Support

that can be scaled to whatever height is required (Figure 4).

By far the most common method of supporting pipe during the initial stringing and joining phases of any pipeline project is with the use of wooden skids (Figure 3).

Figure 4 High level skidding/cribbing

The method of cribbing the pipe with wooden skids can be costly and, since the skids are relatively heavy, very labour intensive. Each skid must be manually placed and then later manually removed and loaded back onto trucks following the placement of the pipeline into the trench. Mechanical removal methods are also available but are costly. Sometimes support cones made of polymeric materials are also used for supporting pipe sections out of the trench. These cones have both pipe size and weight limitations and are meant for a single height and not for use in the trench. Typically when used they only support pipes of less than 506 mm (24 inches) in diameter (Figure 5). These cones can not be used for long term support of pipelines in the trench, as they are too tall and do not have sufficient load bearing capacity particularly during the hydrostatic test phase.

Figure 3 Low level skidding

Wooden skids are typically made from nonrenewable hardwood trees with the following dimensions 102mm x 167mm x 1219mm long (4 x 6 x 48 long) weighing anywhere from 11 to 18 kg each (25 to 40 lbs.) During the pipe stringing, wooden skids are often laid out four to seven at a time to stabilize the pipe and raise it just high enough to clear the ground. During the joining phase, the individual pipe must be raised higher for proper working room and clearance around each end of the pipe. Skids are positioned in an alternating, interlocking box pattern (cribbing)

Figure 5 Poly support cones

2 This method of wooden cribbing dates back to the early days of pipeline construction likely borrowed from the mining industry where wood cribbing was used as a framework to support or strengthen a mine or shaft.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

In Trench Support The common methods for holding the pipe up off the trench bottom in rocky/stony areas are the use of loose sand piles, sand bags, spray in foam or preformed foam pillows. 1. Sand Piles In areas where sand backfill is to be used as a protective layer for the pipeline, individual sand piles seem like a logical choice for preliminary pipeline support and have been used for decades. Although sand piles do help support cathodic protection systems, they do pose concerns, particularly with todays larger diameter, thin walled pipelines. Current construction practices typically string the pipeline on the ROW prior to trench excavation. Once the trench is excavated and rock is exposed, it is difficult to reach over the pipeline to deposit intermittent piles of sand (Figure 6).

pipe at the proper height. Alternatively, a thick continuous bed of sand can be laid down prior to lowering in the welded pipeline. Although good for support, this method can be difficult to achieve safely and in a cost effective manner. With the eventual inflow of groundwater into the trench and the percolation of surface water down, sand has been known to be diluted with the surrounding stone and often will even migrate along the pipeline and away from the area it was meant to protect leading to the pipeline resting on the stony trench bottom. 2. Sand Bags With the installation difficulties of sand piles coupled with their risk of migration due to groundwater, individual sand bags seem to then become a rational alternative (Figure 7). Sand bags can be individually placed without the need for equipment and, with the use of porous fill materials, cathodic shielding should not be an issue.

Figure 7 Sand bag support

Figure 6 Reaching over pipe

Care must be taken to ensure sand piles are properly placed in order to maintain consistent, regular support. Otherwise there may be an increased risk of ovality and/or denting especially during the hydrostatic testing phase. Additionally, small amounts of groundwater often filter back into the trench, which can cause the sand piles to level out, immediately decreasing their ability to support the

If not properly placed, however, sandbag supports can create a hard spot where the pipeline is likely to dent or oval, which is an unacceptable and expensive problem to remedy. The sheer number of sandbags required with this method, all of which have to be manually placed, makes it difficult to ensure proper care is maintained in the sandbag placement. Since sandbags must be positioned manually, safety for pipeline personnel becomes a concern. The workers must be in the trench for extended periods of time,

Copyright 2012 by ASME

and trench depth often exceeds 2.4 m (8 ft) and is subject to ground water intrusion. 3. Spray-in Foam Pillows

iii)

iv) With the increasing pipeline diameters and their associated weight, closed cell foam has taken over as the default method of choice for intermittent pipeline support (Figure 8). Foam does offer the following advantages over sand piles and sand bags; i) ii) iii) Can be sprayed in place for side-toside trench coverage. Decreases the likelihood of ovality and dents. Foam can be supplied relatively quickly.

The availability of and access to foaming equipment can be an issue, particularly in remote areas and in rugged terrain. The long term environmental impact of the foaming chemicals is unknown.

4. Pre-formed Foam Pillows The use of pre-formed foam pillows placed into the pipeline trench to hold the pipeline off the trench bottom until backfilling is also a commonly used support method (Figure 9). The foam pillows used are prefabricated and often covered in plastic to help in their moulding and to address potential concerns over their environmental impact.

Figure 9 Pre-formed foam pillows

Figure 8 Spray-in foam

In the last few years, the use of foam has raised concerns and several disadvantages have become apparent. Since foam is somewhat impervious i) to not only air but water, its potential to shield cathodic protection currents is very high. ii) Foam requires time to harden to the point where it can support the weight of the pipeline and there is a definite potential for the cured strength of the foam being insufficient for supporting the pipeline particularly during hydrostatic testing.

However, as with the sandbag method, the placement of foam pillows often requires personnel in the trench. In addition, foam pillows are lightweight and can be either be blown or floated out of position prior to the pipeline being installed (groundwater is often present in areas of rocky/stony terrain). Another significant concern with the use of individual foam pillows is the high likelihood of cathodic shielding. The electrical system for protecting the pipeline from rusting by injecting a low voltage current into the ground can be partially impeded by foam. If left on, the plastic covering certainly makes the cathodic shielding of foam even worse. Despite the obvious cathodic shielding issues, both spray and pre-formed foam pillows remain the most

Copyright 2012 by ASME

common method of in-trench pipeline support, particularly for larger diameter pipelines. THE STRUCTURED PIPELINE PILLOW Design Originally developed to solely address the cathodic shielding concerns of foam, the Structured Pipeline Pillow (SPP) has evolved into a multi-functional tool with both in-trench and out-of-trench support applications. Initially, bags designed from high strength, woven geotextile fabrics were considered as a potential in trench pipeline support. Geotextile fabrics are known to allow groundwater an easy path thereby not causing any significant restrictions to cathodic protection currents. The difficulty was to find a fill material that was light enough to allow easy placement of the support in the trench, yet strong enough to withstand the weight of the pipe, all while maintaining the low shielding effects of the fabric. As it became evident a suitable fill material meeting the above basic criteria would be difficult to source, resources shifted to investigate a new concept a different idea a hard poly support. Before proceeding further, criteria were developed for designing the ideal pipeline pillow; 1. Light enough to be handled individually with a maximum weight of 18 kg (40 lbs). 2. No one required in the trench for installation. 3. Resist floatation. 4. Strong enough to hold a pipeline filled with hydrostatic test water. 5. Stackable for easy transport. 6. Contact area with the pipe surface should be porous enough to allow free flow of groundwater and cathodic protection currents. 7. UV resistant. 8. Resistant to a wide range of chemicals (pH) found in soil.

9. Pipe clearance off the bottom of the trench must maintain for the life of the pipeline. 10. Inner cavities accessible to soil inflow over the long term. Computer Modeling With a more structured design in mind for the pillow, standard engineering modeling could be utilized to further the design and analysis. Design software, Solidworks (SW), was utilized to develop and initially analyze different designs, working through approximately 20 iterations before honing in on a design that was close to meeting all our initial criteria. Once a basic design was developed, a tubular shape which includes outer and inner supporting walls, analysis was carried out utilizing the finite element tools available within SW (Figure 10).

Figure 10 SPP design meshed

The finite element modeling (FEM) analysis consisted of simulating a pipe loaded to varying weights applied to the SPP. This analysis simulated the different applications intended, and the results from these tests allowed for further refinement of the design (Figure 11). From the results we were able to identify the highest stress points and the areas that underwent the most deflection and alter the design to reduce stress and deflection in those areas. These iterations allowed us to not only increase the load carrying capacity of the SPP, but reduce the overall weight as well.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The SPP is designed to be easily removed from the mould it was manufactured in. A draft of 7 degrees or greater has been applied to the SPP to prevent it from sticking into the mould following the injection process. This also allows for a compact shipping configuration. As the design further evolved, physical models were fabricated utilizing rapid prototyping tools. With physical models in hand, it was easy to envision the SPPs potential for use outside the trench as an alternative to wooden skids for many situations. With this realization, load bearing, stacking shoulders were incorporated into the design. This allowed for a stable, safe stacking configuration in an elevated position. The stacking shoulders also helped to increase the overall strength of the design (Figure 13).

Figure 11 SPP analysis set up

The load simulations were calculated using some of the heaviest wall pipe used in the industry. In an attempt to simulate a worst-case scenario, each size of SPP was tested to a weight which equaled the heaviest wall pipe full of hydrostatic water (Figure 12).

Figure 12 SPP loading results close-up

Figure 13 SPP stacking configurations

CAD modeling allowed testing of various design theories in order to satisfy the outlined criteria. Fine tuning of design involved moving stresses around by introducing differing load transferring surfaces and curvatures. Additional analysis to confirm the SW analysis was carried out by an independent consultant using the general purpose finite element software program ABAQUS. The ABAQUS program has advanced capabilities over SW as it can calculate the nonlinear characteristics of the material and the inherent design strength of the SPP. The results displayed how much the design would stand up with increased load and produced displacement and stress plots, which reinforced earlier analysis with SW.

In order to avoid the jamming of one SPP into another in the nested condition, spacer tabs were incorporated into the outer and inner support walls. These spacer tabs were further developed to act as an additional load carrying surface increasing the SPPs flexibility by giving stacked SPPs the ability to support the pipe at two differing levels. The SPP was designed to partially flex under the weight of the pipeline. In areas where the pipe and the trench bottom do not meet, handles were incorporated into the design to give the contractor the option to strap SPPs to the bottom of the pipe to ensure contact is maintained during backfilling. This same strapping method can be utilized in areas of

Copyright 2012 by ASME

deep excavation to attach the SPPs prior to installing the pipe section.

Full Scale Testing To follow up on the computer modeling, full scale samples for use with 914 mm OD (36) pipe were manufactured utilizing a roto-moulding process and high density polyethylene resins. Initially six samples were manufactured and tested in a local pipe yard. One 12 m joint of 914 mm OD, 19 mm WT pipe (40, 36OD, 0.75WT) was balanced on a single SPP with a total load of 5200 kg (11,460 lbs). To simulate the potential load from hydrostatic test water, two PipeSak pipeline weights each weighing 4082 kg (9000 lbs) were installed on the pipe on either side of the SPP. No deflection of the SPP was observed (Figure 14).

stacked tower of four SPP with the other end held level with an excavator. The pipe was pulled from side to side with the excavator to try and roll the pipe off the SPP stack. The pipe could not be dislodged out of the SPP in this manner. To confirm our test results, further comparative lateral stability testing is being carried out in a controlled environment. Construction Field Test In 2011 the SPP was trialed on a new 1067 mm OD (42 OD) pipeline project. One hundred SPPs were roto-molded out of high-density polyethylene resins to match the OD of the 1067 mm pipeline. Since this was an ongoing project, the bulk of the in-trench pipeline supports were already installed utilizing sprayed-in-place foam pillows. A 300 m gap in the extremely rocky trench was reserved to trial SPPs. Prior to the SPP being used in the trench, tests were carried out to determine their suitability as a wood skid replacement during the stringing and welding of the pipeline (Figure 15). For skidding of the pipe, different heights of SPP were trialed from single heights through to five SPP which raised the pipe 81 cm (32) off the ground.

Figure 14 Full scale test

To take the SPP to failure, additional loading was required two 1590 kg (3500 lb) concrete blocks were placed on top of the PipeSaks. At this time the single SPP slowly collapsed indicating failure. Total load applied to one (1) SPP was 16,544 kg (36,473 lbs). A lateral stability test was carried out with four SPP stacked in an elevated position. The same 914 mm OD pipe was laid into the pipe crotch of a single

Figure 15 SPP skid replacement outside of trench

During the stacking it was important, but not critical, that the ground be somewhat flat and dry. If an area was not, initial wood skidding to level the area was recommended prior to the placement of SPPs. During the welding process, five SPPs were required to obtain the proper 81 cm (32) height. It took two labourers approximately four minutes to

Copyright 2012 by ASME

stack the five SPPs. In comparison, it took twice as many labourers approximately ten minutes to stack the 27 wooded skids to raise the pipe to the same height. With each wooden skid weighing close to 18 kg, a total of approximately 486 kg (1071 lbs) were required to raise the pipeline 81 cm (32). In comparison, each SPP weighed only 17 kg for a total of 85 kg (187 lbs) per 81 cm (32) tall tower.
Figure 17 SPP installation in trench

For both the pipe stringing and the pipe welding operations, SPPs worked similar to wooden skids but with a much lower labour component. The only apparent limitation may be stacking height and uneven or wet/muddy conditions. The SPPs used during the stringing and welding operations were reused for the in-trench application. Spacing was kept similar to the foam pillows which were approximately one every 3.7 m (12) even though the weight bearing capacity of an SPP far exceeded that of a foam pillow (Figure 16).

For the size and weight of pipe encountered during our field test (1067 mm OD, 15.9 mm WT), care had to be taken to ensure the SPP centerlines were lined up. For lighter, smaller diameter pipelines, the SPP and pipe would line each other up. Prior to placing the pipeline into service, geometry tools were run through the pipeline with no evidence of ovality or dents in the area of the SPP.

CONCLUSION The use of closed cell foam in pipeline trenches have been known to create shielding effects of cathodic protection systems wherever it touches the pipeline coating. This fact has been consciously overlooked due to the apparent support abilities of foam. This has been particularly important for large diameter pipelines with high D/t ratios, which are most susceptible to ovality and denting. The structured pipeline pillow is an engineered alternative to foam one that not only supports buried pipelines better over the long n term but also exhibits far lower risk of cathodic shielding. SPPs can also be used outside the trench as an alternative to the wooden skids in many situations and are available in all pipe sizes (Figure 18).

Figure 16 SPP in trench

SPPs are designed to be installed with an installation tool, which is similar to a 4.8 m long 2x4. Each SPP has a center hole with a cross section complimentary to that of the installation tool. The installation tool is placed at the bottom of the trench where the SPP is required. The SPP is then mounted onto the user end of the installation tool, flange side first, and slid into position (Figure 17).

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 18 SPP sizes and suggested stacking/spacing

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1. James Blooker, EIT PipeSak Incorporated 2. Rhett Dotson, P.E. Stress Engineering Services, Inc. 3. University of Western Ontario Machine Services, Mechanical Engineering 4. Lynn Christensen & John Jermyn, El Paso Corp. 5. Mickey Langston, Rockford Corp.

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME