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

IPC2012-90268

DESIGN OF PARALLEL PIPELINES IN SECOND WEST-EAST NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT

Hang Shi China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation Lang Fang, HeBei, P.R.China Wenwei Zhang China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation Lang Fang, HeBei, P.R.China Wen Wu China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation Lang Fang, HeBei, P.R.China Liuqun Huang China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation Lang Fang, HeBei, P.R.China

Zhifeng Yu China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation Lang Fang, HeBei, P.R.China

ABSTRACT The Second West-East Gas Pipeline(2nd WEP) Project, consisting of one trunk line and eight branches, has a total length of 8,704 km and a designed annual transportation capacity of 30 billion cubic meters. The outside diameter of trunk line is 1,219 mm (48). According to the plan, 2nd WEP will parallel with several existing or planning pipelines in long distance, some will even be located in rocky area. However, there are neither requirements of separation distance nor other related provisions of parallel pipelines in current domestic regulation and codes in China. It is an urgent critical problem to reasonably design, construct and operate multiple pipelines in same corridor. In order to design 2nd WEP in parallel with other existing and planning pipelines, a series of technical studies were carried out. This paper describes the main work. First of all is the literature review, including regulation, standards, codes etc. and similar work on parallel pipelines and applicable practices in other countries. Second, for the primary concern-separation distance, the main factors are considered. Then, the computational results of some 2nd WEP paralleling with other pipelines based on the impact of the failure of natural gas pipeline to adjacent pipelines are introduced. Third, the experiments and some related researches in rocky areas where 2nd WEP parallels with existing pipelines are introduced. Forth, analysis of Direct Current (DC) stray current interference resulted from Cathodic Protection (CP) Systems located along each parallel pipeline is briefly introduced. Then is the mitigation and monitoring requirements for unbounded (separate) CP system.

According to the works above together with engineering practices as well as experiences, the design guideline of parallel pipelines is established. When 2nd WEP parallels with other pipelines not locating in rocky areas, the reasonable separation distance is based on integrated considerations of adjacent pipelines survival in the event of failure of gas transmission pipeline, easiness to construct, less CP interferences, adequate space requirements for maintenance and repair. For other paralleling cases, engineering requirements are established separately. This guideline has been applied in design of parallel pipelines and provides management requirements for future operation in 2nd WEP project. KEYWORDS: Pipeline corridor, Parallel Pipelines, Natural Gas, Design 1. INTRODUCTION The Second West-East Natural Gas Pipeline(2nd WEP), consisting of one trunk line and eight branches, has a total length of 8,704 km and a designed annual transportation capacity of 30 billion cubic meters. For the trunk line, the outside diameter is 1,219 mm, the length is about 4,945km, design pressure is 12MPa in the first half section (west section) and 10MPa in second section (east section). API 5L X80 is used on all trunk line, external coating is 3-Layer Polyethylence Epoxy, cathodic protection system is mainly impressed current system. The western area where west section located is the important energy corridor of China. In this area 2nd WEP needs to parallel with several existing and planning pipelines at

Copyright 2012 by ASME

around 2,400 km, within which 192 km are located in rocky area. Furthermore, 2nd WEP parallels with several existing or planning pipelines in some areas in east section. Normally, when the 2nd WEP will be located less than 50m in rocky area and 20m in soil conditions of existing pipelines, the operators argue that the separation must be larger than that space, thus it is very difficult for 2nd WEP to design and construct. Furthermore, due to the topographical condition, or where there are railways, towns or villages nearby, it will be impossible for the separation distance to reach 50m or 20m in some areas. It is known that it has the privilege of saving land, sharing resources, limiting the impact of construction on the environment and easy to manage when several pipelines in same corridor. So, there is a desire to reduce the spacing between parallel, high-pressure transmission pipelines, but reduced spacing makes a pipeline potentially more vulnerable to incidents on neighboring pipelines. Meanwhile, according to the plan of PetroChina, there will be many pipelines located in same western corridor. However, there are neither requirements of separation distance nor related requirements of parallel pipelines in current domestic regulation and codes. It is an urgent critical problem to reasonably design multiple pipelines in same corridor. In order to design 2nd WEP in parallel with existing and planning pipelines, a series of technical studies were carried out. This paper describes the main works. First of all is the literature review, including regulation, standards, codes etc. and similar work on parallel pipelines and applicable practices in other countries. Second, for the primary concern-separation distance, consider the main factors. Then, the computational results of some 2nd WEP paralleling with other pipelines cases based on the impact of the failure of natural gas pipeline on adjacent pipelines are introduced, Third, the experiments and some related work in rocky areas where 2nd WEP parallels with existing pipelines are introduced. Fourth, the brief analysis on DC stray current interference resulted from Cathodic Protection Systems located along each parallel pipeline. 2. REVIEW OF TECHNICAL LITERATURE Regulations and standards or codes documenting the provisions related with the separation distances of parallel pipelines were reviewed for applicability to reference in solving the problem of 2nd WEP paralleling with other pipelines. This literature includes the following: Regulations & Codes in U.S.A US 49 CFR 192.325(a) Underground clearance for Transmission Lines Each transmission line must be installed with at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of clearance from any other underground structure not associated with the transmission line. If this clearance cannot be attained, the transmission line must be protected from damage that might result from the proximity of the other structure.

US 49 CFR 195.250 Clearance between pipe and underground structures. Any pipe installed underground must have at least 12 inches (305 millimeters) of clearance between the outside of the pipe and the extremity of any other underground structure, except that for drainage tile the minimum clearance may be less than 12 inches (305 millimeters) but not less than 2 inches (51 millimeters). However, where 12 inches (305 millimeters) of clearance is impracticable, the clearance may be reduced if adequate provisions are made for corrosion control. ASME B31.8 841.143 Clearance between Pipelines or Mains and Other Underground Structures (a) There shall be at least 6 in. of clearance wherever possible between any buried pipeline and any other underground structure not used in conjunction with the pipeline. When such clearance cannot be attained, precautions to protect the pipe shall be taken, such as the installation of casing, bridging, or insulating material. Canada CSA Z662-2007 Clause 4.11.2 and 4.11.3 For the installation of buried pipelines near other pipelines, the clearance(in any direction)between such pipelines and other buried pipelines should be at a minimum clearance of 300 mm, except that reduced clearance may be used if the pipelines are appropriately protected from damage that can result from proximity to such objects. In the Commentary of these clauses, it is noted that: When establishing the clearance in any direction between two buried pipelines, the designer shall give consideration to factors that can contribute to pipeline damage, such as the following: (a)pipeline movement during service; (b)activities associated with the excavation of either pipeline; (c)the compatibility of the pipelines catholic protection systems; and (d) failure of the other pipeline. Australia AS 2885.1-2007 Clause 10.12.2 Clearances Pipelines shall be installed at a safe distance from any underground structure, service or pipeline. Precautions shall be taken to prevent the imposition of external stresses from or on any other underground structure or pipeline. Where a pipeline is laid parallel to or crosses an underground structure, service or pipeline with a clearance of less than 300 mm, the pipeline shall be protected from damage that might be caused by the other structure or pipeline and protected from electrical contact. Unless otherwise approved, there shall be no electrical contact between a pipeline and any other underground structure, service or pipeline. Where practicable, there shall be sufficient clearance for any maintenance or repairs to be carried out on the pipeline.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

UK IGEM/TD/1 Edition 5 Clause 6.11 PIPELINES RUNNING PARALLEL TO OTHER MAJOR PIPELINES Reference to Table 1 should be made for guidance on the maximum interaction distance expected for a range of pipeline diameters and ground conditions for two parallel buried Natural Gas pipelines of MOP80 bar. The minimum separation distance required to prevent escalation is a complex function of the pipeline parameters and ground conditions. The table shows that maximum effect distances range between 3m and 12m depending on soil type and pipeline diameter. Provided that the separation distance between the centerline of the larger diameter pipeline and the nearest point on the circumference of the other pipeline is greater than the maximum interaction distance estimated for the larger diameter pipeline, escalation as a result of a failure on one pipeline interacting with the other can be considered extremely unlikely. Where these minimum distances cannot be achieved due to practical constraints, specialist advice should be sought. Table 1.Minimum separation distance(m) for parallel natural gas pipelines. MOP80 bar MINIMUM SEPARATION NOMINAL DISTANCE(m) PIPELINE DIAMETER SOIL TYPE mm 323.9 323.9 457 457 610 610 762 762 914 914 1067 1067 1219 Sandy 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 Mixed 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 Clay 3 3 4 5 6 7 8

PRCI Spacing of Parallel Natural Gas Pipelines Report In 1999, PRCI commissioned Battelle to assess available, equation-based models in terms of applicability to loss of integrity scenarios. The goal is to assist gas companies in determining the spacing that is a practical balance between safe and reliable operation in the event of a rupture of one of the pipelines, and the need to minimize environmental impact. If loss of integrity of a pipeline is to cause damage to an adjacent pipeline, a particular sequence of events is required. First, loss of integrity of the initiating pipeline leads to the formation of a crater. Second, the escaping gas is ignited and forms a sustained flame. Third, the flame heats the uncovered, adjacent pipeline. This stresses the adjacent pipeline structure, and may cause damage. Main Conclusions are: Pipeline spacing greater than 25 feet (~8 meters) appears to be reasonable in reducing the potential for damage of adjacent pipelines. The effect of radiative flame heating diminishes rapidly as distance from the flame increases. Considering similar provisions in most countries, the minimum clearance between pipelines and adjacent structure(including pipeline)is very small(300~305mm), and even this clearance can be decreased if adequate measures are undertaken to prevent contact between the pipeline and other underground structure. Only UKs new version IGEM TD-1 gives recommended minimum separation distances based on the effect of natural gas pipeline failure depending on soil type and pipeline diameter. Thus, the provisions, engineering practices and technical research reports from other countries couldnt be applied directly into the design of 2nd WEP Project. But all these above provide important references. 3. MAIN STUDIES TO DECIDE REASONABLE SEPARATION DISTANCE As the longest, highest design pressure natural gas transmission pipeline in China, 2nd WEP parallels with many pipelines, parallel sections locate either in soil or in rocky areas, or even in mountain tunnels and other special structures, parallel sections length is either long (>50km) or short (20~300m); some of the adjacent pipelines transport hazard liquids like crude oil and products, others transport natural gas. Furthermore, some of the adjacent pipelines are existing, others are under planned. When this complex situation is taken into consideration, it is readily evident that during the design phase of this project, lateral spacing between parallel pipelines in a common rightof-way must be provided for the space required for construction, for operations and for maintenance and repair needs in order to allow the pipeline company owner/operators to perform these activities in a safe manner. One additional concern is the effects of an adjacent pipeline failure. That is to

Note: [9] introduces the method of development of guidelines for parallel pipelines in detail. This paper provides the important background information for IGEM/TD-1s recommended separation distances.

Some Engineering Practices According to the experiences from oversea pipeline projects, it is found that the provisions on minimum separation distance between parallel pipelines vary to a certain degree from company to company, and even from different local conditions within same company. Most of the companies set different separation distances according to whether parallel pipelines construction at the same time. In one companys provision, when a new pipeline in parallel with an existing one and not in the same trench, the separation distance is between 2~5m(according to the diameter).When new pipelines installed in a same trench at the same time, the clearance between two adjacent pipelines is at least 0.5m.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

say, the separation distance is dictated by safety, construction, operation, maintenance and repair considerations. Some of above considerations will vary from the paralleling location to location, some should be determined based on engineering practices. However, three aspects including the effects of an adjacent pipeline failure, blasting near existing pipeline and Cathodic Protection Systems stray current interference must be considered and will be introduced in the later sections. Effects of Natural Gas pipeline failure To determine recommended minimum separation distances to avoid interaction between pipelines, with the help of Advantica(now part of GL Noble Denton), based on the method of development of guidelines for parallel pipelines in [9], some parallel cases where 2nd WEP parallels with existing 1st WEP, Western Crude Oil Pipeline(WOP), Western Product Pipeline(WPP), planned 3rd WEP are analyzed. All the design parameters of pipelines are listed in Table 2. The recommended parallel separations in different soil conditions based on the maximum effect distances of Natural gas pipelines failure are listed in Table 3.

Table 2. Parallel pipelines design parameters Design Pressure MAOP (MPa) 10 12 10 8,10 10

Pipeline

Pipeline Type Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Product Crude Oil

Diameter (mm)

Material Grade

1nd WEP 2nd WEP (West) 2nd WEP (East) WPP WOP

1016 1219 1219 559 813

X70 X80 X80 X65 X65

Note: The design parameters of 3rd WEP is the same as the 2nd WEP.

Table 3. Recommended wall-to-wall separation distances Pipelines P1 P2 Depth of Cover (m) 0.7 1nd WEP 2nd WEP(West) 1.2 1.5 2.0 0.7 2nd WEP (West) WOP 1.2 1.5 2.0 0.7 1.2 2nd WEP (West) WPP 1.5 12.4 6.4 Recommended Separation (m) Sandy 10.6 11.7 12.4 13.5 10.6 11.7 12.4 13.5 10.6 11.7 Mixed 5.2 6.0 6.4 7.2 5.2 6.0 6.4 7.2 5.2 6.0 Clay 3.1* 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.3*(w.t.7.1mm) 3.7*(w.t.8.8mm) 4.3*(w.t.7.1mm) 3.7*(w.t.8.8mm) 4.3*(w.t.7.1mm) 3.7*(w.t.8.8mm) 4.3*(w.t.7.1mm) 3.7*(w.t.8.8mm) 3.5*

2.0 2nd WEP (West) 3rd WEP (West) 0.5

13.5 10.1

7.2 4.9

Copyright 2012 by ASME

1.2 2nd WEP(East) 3rd WEP (East) 0.5 1.2

11.7 10.1 11.7

6.0 4.9 6.0

3.5* 3.5* 3.5

* Recommended separation distance is determined by ground pressure of 2nd WEPs rupture. Besides, for some parallel cases with predefined separation distances, the ground crater, the pressure loading, heat loading effects to adjacent pipelines and the thermal response of adjacent pipelines after the puncture and rupture are computed. All the results provide reference for engineers to determine the separation and provide mitigation measures where recommended separations cannot be reached. Trench Blasting near Existing Operating Pipeline in Rock The primary hazards associated with blasting near pipelines include permanent rock mass displacement owing to delayed gas pressures and ground strains from wave propagation (compressive, shear and surface waves). Current pipeline standards not only in China but also in many other countries do not address these limitations for blasting in proximity to buried pipelines. There are many technical reports and papers documenting the results and conclusions of several test programs on the effects of blasting on buried welded steel pipelines refer to [10]. But the results are for different purpose, some for highway and road construction, some for coal mining, some for new pipeline trench blasting, and for each result, there are different assumption and prerequisites. In normal engineering practice, existing methodology is often applied in the form of permissible ground particle velocity thereby limiting ground strain, and most common peak particle velocity(PPV) limit is 5ips(12.7cm/s) [11]. (Note:ips=inch/sec). Considering the terrain, topography and geomorphology of location where 2nd WEP,1st WEP, WOP and WPP in same corridor(rocky area), the practical equation (1) expressing relationship between charge weight and particle velocity which has been validated in domestic projects is selected to guide trench blasting of 2nd WEP near existing pipelines.. The values of K , in equation (1) are determined by experiments, which had been carried out in field. The illustration of the experiment is shown in Figure 1. After validated the experiment data and comparing these data with computation results, it is determined that: In order to accurately adopt the related parameters values, these values must be used according to the distance to the existing pipelines. After combining experiment data with data analysis result, three distance ranges are used which are listed: 1) Near (30m) 2) Middle(30m<Distance50m) 3) Far(>50m) For different range, different blasting method, blasting type, detonation technique, grid holes parameters, explosive charge and the utilization of initiators & pyrotechnics are adopted.

First, determine different values of K , for different distance ranges in Table 4. Second, compute total charge weight of single detonating for each distance range. Third, combing the experience of trench excavation blasting with the computation result, the detailed blasting procedure (include recommendation and warnings) was developed. One example is the hole setting for middle range (Figure 2), another example is for near range at distance at 10~20m, it is suggested to use presplit blasting technique(Figure 3), and for within 10m distance, not only it is prohibited to use presplit blasting technique, but also other blasting reduction and anti-shock techniques are suggested(Figure 4). Table 4.Different K , SEPARATION DISTANCE (m) Far(50m) Middle(30~50m) Near(<30m) 110 110 100 1.30 1.30 1.4(1.30) for different distances

3 Q V = K R
Where:

(1)

Vpeak particle velocity, cm/s; Qtotal charge weight of single detonating, kg; Rdistance between the pipeline and explosive source, m Kfactor related with blasting source and rock feature; decreasing index.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Testing Room

Plot of experiment for testing K and

Explosive Source Center

Charge loading location and Testing Points Layout

Blasting

Area

Fig.1 Illustration of experiment method for testing K and

Hole

>100ms

>100ms

>100ms

>100ms

>100ms

>100ms

Fig.2 Millisecond Delay Detonating Network

Fig.2 Millisecond delay detonating network

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Existing Buried Pipeline

Normal Hole

Existing Pl Presplit blasting hole

Presplit Explosive Holes

30% More

Normal Explosive Holes

Fig.3 Presplit blasting technique

Blasting Reduction Holes Single Grid

Charge Loading Holes

Empty Hole
Existing Pl

Existing Buried Pipeline

40% More

Blasting Reduction Holes Double Grid

Fig.4 Blasting reduction and anti-shock techniques illustration

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Interference analysis from CP systems Numerous cathodic protection systems are located along pipeline corridor, and each CP system belongs to different pipeline operator. One CP system of a pipeline may probably be interfered by other pipelines CP current. Therefore, essential factors should be considered such as the space between pipelines, coating type and quality, the distance between the anode(s) and the pipeline for each pipeline, the electrical output of CP system including output voltage and current of rectifier unit, local soils resistivity etc. For sake of coating quality detection and assessment in future, especially CP potential survey, separate CP system is installed for the 2nd WEP instead of utilizing existing pipelines CP systems. Of course the necessary interference mitigation measures have been taken for different field condition, for example, providing resistive bonding, shield the 2nd WEP from nearby anode ground of other pipelines. 4. APPLICATION Combing the above work with engineering experiences of CPPE, together with careful considerations of safety, construction, operation, repair and maintenance etc. aspects, the guideline of determining reasonable separation distances between parallel pipelines is established. This guideline has been successfully applied for each paralleling section in the construction alignment of 2nd WEP project. Meanwhile, the mitigation and special requirements during operating phase are also promoted. The separation distances are determined as below: a) For the pipeline route where no restriction exists (like Gobi, wasteland), the recommended separation distance is at least larger than the maximum interaction distance expected for a range of pipeline diameters and ground conditions for parallel cases of 2nd WEP with other pipelines, then considering the adequate space to easily construct, maintain and repair, the recommend separation is 10~15m. b)At locations where is restricted by terrain, local land using planning, mountain area, environment sensitive location like grass land and drinking water sources etc., the separation distance can be decreased after adopting safety mitigation measures like increasing coating thickness level according to the field condition. In these cases, minimum separation distance should at least be sufficient for maintenance or repairs to be carried out on the pipeline. The protective preventive engineering measures are also adopted. For example, in forest crowded Guozigou(Fruit Valley)mountainous area, in order to either prevent the impact on 2nd WEP of the future construction of 3rd WEP or minimize environmental impact, planning section of 3rd WEP is installed in the same trench with 2nd WEP(Figure 5). Meanwhile, in the mountain crossing tunnel, 2nd WEP and 3rd WEP are installed at the same time (See Figure 6). Parallel pipelines constructed at the same time can be installed in a same trench, otherwise, it is not recommended to

do so. For special locations where separation distance is small, the special measures, like installation considerations and testing during construction, during operation (including CP systems interference mitigation), maintenance, repair and inspection etc. should be advised to stakeholders. c) At rocky locations, below provisions should be adopted: i) For 2nd WEP parallels with planning 3rd WEP, trench excavation time should be arranged reasonably. Its better to blast one trench or multi trenches(around 15m separation) at the same time. ii) In rocky areas where 2nd WEP parallels with existing pipelines, different trench excavation methods should be used according to the separation distances: Where separation distance is larger than 20m, blasting technique to trench excavation may be used, and the PPV at the surface of soil upon the existing pipeline should be less than 10cm/s. Where separation distance is larger than 10m but less than or equal to 20m, it is recommended to use non-blasting technique to trench excavation. If blasting technique to trench excavation is used, the blasting procedure should be validated by authorized organization as well as the owner of existing pipeline. Where separation distance is less than 10m, it is forbidden to use blasting method for trench excavation. 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION From the practice of design of parallel pipelines in 2nd WEP, the primary concern is to determine reasonable separation distance, which is mainly based on adjacent pipelines survival in the event of failure of gas transmission pipeline, constructability, maintenance and repair requirements. For special cases where reasonable separation distances cannot be attained , after careful considerations about actual field situation, total paralleling length, practical engineering solutions including construction, avoid contacting of adjacent pipelines measures like sand bags etc. must be adopted. Meanwhile, management and monitoring of parallel pipelines corridor including avoidance of DC stray current interference, are also important. Without prejudice to safety, the parallel pipelines have been successfully designed in 2nd WEP project, which has saved large amount of land resources for China, reducing the impact of construction on the environment. Based on the experience on parallel pipelines work in 2nd WEP project, the Parallel Pipeline Design Guideline has been developed and is used in the design for other new pipeline projects in China. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank many colleagues past and present as well as from 2nd WEP Design Consortium for their contributions to this work, particularly Mr. Xiang Bo, Mr. Cai

Copyright 2012 by ASME

HangPing and Mr. Li SiQun. They also wish to acknowledge the Advanctica and Blasting Institute whose co-operation provided important assistance for the parallel pipelines design of 2nd WEP REFERENCES [1] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 192 Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, 2009 [2] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 195Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, 2009 [3] ASME B31.8-2007, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping System, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2007 [4] CSA Z662-07, Oil and gas pipeline systems, Canadian Standards Association, 2008 [5] Commentary on CSA Z662-07,Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Canadian Standards Association ,2008 [6] AS 2885.1-2007, PipelinesGas and Liquid Petroleum Part 1: Design and Construction, Standards Australia, 2007 [7] IGEM/TD/1 Edition 5 Communication 1735, Steel Pipelines and Associated Installations for High Pressure Gas Transmission, Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers, 2008 [8] PRCI L51861, Line Rupture and the Spacing of Parallel Lines, Battelle Memorial Institute, April 2, 2002 [9] Michael R.Acton, Neil W.Jackson and Eric E.R.Jager, 2010, Development of Guidelines for Parallel pipelines, Proc.8th International Pipeline Conference(IPC 2010) Calgary, ASME International. IPC2010-31287 [10] Douglas J. Nyman, Charles H. Dowding and Lewis L. Oriard, Evaluation of Close-in Blasting Effects on Welded Steel Pipelines , Proc.7th International Pipeline Conference(IPC 2008) Calgary, ASME International. IPC2008-64400 [11] PRCI L52260, Gap Study and Recommendations for the Analysis and Testing of Pipe Response to Buried Explosive Detonations, Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc., May 20,2005 [12] Preliminary Design Report and Related Document, Design Consortium of 2nd WEP Project, Oct. 2008 [13] Research Report of Parallel Pipelines Project of 2nd WEP Project and Annexes, Design Consortium of 2nd WEP Project, May. 2009

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Fig.5 Special area where 2nd WEP and planning pipeline in same trench

Fig.6 2nd WEP and a planning pipeline in crossing mountain tunnel

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME