Proceedings of the 2016 11th International Pipeline Conference IPC2016 September 26-30, 2016, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2016-64518
Analysis of Pressure Test Failure Performance for Vintage Pipe Jenny Jing Chen Dynamic Risk, Calgary, AB, CA
Dan Williams Dynamic Risk, Calgary, AB, CA
Keith Leewis Leewis and Associates, Calgary, AB, CA
David Aguiar PG&E, San Ramon, CA, US information available to support decision-making can be improved upon for matters related to risk mitigation and pipeline reliability. This objective is consistent with the progression towards increasingly data-driven integrity management programs.
Keywords Vintage pipe, pressure test, risk assessment
Abstract Systemic manufacturing defects in select vintage pipe pose challenges when assessing the integrity of pipeline systems comprised of such pipe. The common manufacturing technology and quality control practices in place at the time of manufacturing left some vintage line pipe prone to imperfections which could remain even after passing pressure tests in the mill or after construction. The lack of complete and reliable manufacturing records for some vintage line pipe limits granularity and adds integrity assessment uncertainties.
Approximately 70% of the 300,000+ miles of interstate gas transmission and gathering pipelines in service in the United States were constructed with pipe manufactured before the Code of Federal Regulations were implemented on pipeline infrastructure in 1970. The incident data from 2002 to present day collected by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) indicates that up to 38% (2/5) of gas transmission and gathering pipeline incidents involved steel pipe manufactured and installed prior to 1970. These older pipelines employed inherently different materials, manufacturing, and construction practices. When attempting to address vintage pipe concerns, one of the main challenges facing the industry is the limited amount of information related to older pipe mill production.
Up until 1984, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) required operators to report incidents related to failed pressure tests for all pipelines at the time of installation. Performance with respect to the manufacturer and year of manufacture can therefore be extracted from these reported incidents. These performance records are essential when re-establishing the MAOP (or MOP) and confirming the fitness for service of older pipelines. The pressure test failure performance in the early incident records provides insight into pipeline integrity prioritization and mitigation activities for managing pipeline safety based on pipe manufacturer, production date and seam type.
The only time period over which pipeline operators regulated by the US DOT have been required to report failures related to pre-commissioning pressure tests is from 1970 to 1984. This paper focuses on an analysis of pre-commissioning pressure test failure data from this time period. By focusing on pre-commissioning pressure tests, threats that are related to pipeline operations or time-dependent threats can be eliminated, thereby providing insight into failure susceptibility derived from a database that is dominated by manufacturing (and to a lesser extent construction) defects.
Introduction This paper is intended to improve the general knowledge base of vintage pipe performance so that the granularity of
Based on a statistical analysis of the PHMSA gas transmission
1
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
and gathering pipeline incident data from 1970 to 1984, trends are provided for pipe manufacturer and year of manufacture. An understanding of these trends is important for understanding pipeline threats and vulnerabilities, particularly when conducting studies such as the re-establishment of MAOP (or MOP) and fitness for service related to vintage pipelines. This analysis on vintage pipe pressure test failure performance will serve to better inform pipeline risk assessment and integrity management programs.
Fatigue cracks from cyclic stress created during shipment; High levels of impurities and non-metallic inclusions; and, Hard spots
Although not typically associated with pressure test or service failures, other manufacturing defects include [2]:
The Historic Incident Data
Since the 1970s, PHMSA has collected and published pipeline failure incident data. Prior to 1984, pre-service pressure test failures were considered part of these incident records. During this time period, operators were not only required to report incidents that occurred during operation, but also to report incidents that occurred during pre-service and subsequent pressure tests. In these incident reports, information such as test medium, year of initial test, minimum test pressure and time, as well as estimated pressure at point of leak were recorded for initial and subsequent tests. These records also provided information related to manufacturer and manufacturing date of the associated pipe. Before the 110% MAOP high pressure hydrostatic pressure test was first required (in ASME B31.8, 841.41 - 1955); water, air or gas was used as leak test media at pressures 50 psi above MAOP for pipe not used in compressor stations (ASME B31.1.8, 807 -1951).
Foreign bodies rolled into the steel or plate/skelp surfaces; and, Surface breaking anomalies (i.e. slivers, scabs, seams etc.)
Table 1 Top Pipe Mills for Pressure Test Failure Incidents #
PHMSA incident reports for gas transmission and gathering systems from 1970 to mid-1984 were used for an analysis of pressure test failure records. These records were limited to those related to onshore, steel, gas transmission pipelines. Incidents related to materials other than carbon steel and gathering systems were excluded from the study.
Top Ten Pipe Mills for Pressure Test Failure Incidents A total of 2371 pressure test failure incidents collected from 92 known manufacturers were recorded from the period of 1970 to June 1984. Tabulated in Table 1 are the top ten (10) manufacturers in order of frequency of pressure test failure incidents. The total number of pressure test failure incidents from these top ten (10) pipe mills accounts for 65% of the total number of pressure test failures recorded from the data collection period. The manufacturers associated with the greatest number of pressure test failures were A.O. Smith, Youngstown, Republic Steel, National Tube and Kaiser Steel. A.O. Smith alone accounts for 20% of the reported incidents. These manufacturers are known by the industry to be associated with manufacturing defects produced during certain periods of time. These manufacturing defects include [2]:
Manufacturer
Pressure Test Failures Air
Gas
Water
Total
1
A.O. SMITH
238
105
25
368
2
YOUNGSTOWN
142
48
48
238
3
REPUBLIC STEEL
153
63
16
232
4
NATIONAL TUBE
68
64
71
203
5
KAISER STEEL
165
5
8
178
6
U.S. STEEL
89
20
8
117
7
CONSOLIDATED WESTERN
36
3
1
40
8
JONES & LAUGHLIN
32
1
3
36
9
ACERO DEL PACIFIC
35
9
BETHLEHEM STEEL
25
3
7
35
9
LONE STAR STEEL
29
5
1
35
10
STUPP CORP.
35
35
35
Since certain manufacturers produced pipe from more than one mill and location, records for each of the top ten manufacturers were also broken down by manufacturing location (Table 2). On this basis, the mills that are associated with the greatest number of pressure test failure incidents are A.O. Smith from Milwaukee, WI, Youngstown from Youngstown, OH, Republic Steel from Youngstown, OH, National Tube from McKeesport, PA and Lorain, OH, and Kaiser Steel from Napa, CA.
Top Ten Mills for Pressure Test Failure Incidents by Year of Manufacture It is known by the pipeline industry that the effectiveness of quality control measures for certain production years from
2
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
certain manufacturers was inadequate and that special provisions should be made to manage manufacturing defect threats on pipelines constructed from pipe associated with these susceptible manufacturer / year combinations. Table 3 shows pressure test failure incidents for the top ten pipe mills broken down by the decade of manufacture. A closer examination indicates that pipe associated with the following mills and time periods are particularly prone to manufacturing defects:
manufacture and producing pipe mill location. For instance, although Table 1 shows that A.O. Smith pipe had the highest number of reported incidents for the 15 years of reporting, Table 3 suggests that pipe mills also had different procedures and quality control measures and the number of incidents varies in the different decades of manufacture. If a pipeline operator purchased A.O. Smith pipe during different decades in the past, then these tables can help set future investigation priorities. A.O. Smith pipe purchased during the 1940s and 1950s would warrant a higher priority than pipe purchased before or after. It is also noted that Table 2 shows that the Milwaukee mill incident numbers were much higher than that of the Houston pipe mill for A.O. Smith pipe. Table 4 also shows that A.O. Smith pressure test failure incidents are captured across all vintage seam types. However, in the History of Line Pipe12 the production of seam types is assigned to known mills and production periods and A.O. Smith is not logged as a manufacturer of butt-welded pipe. This shows that some discrepancy can exist in the reporting information available for pressure test failures and needs to be taken into consideration. Although Table 3 breaks out the pressure test failure incident performance by pipe mill and decade of manufacturer, details on the specific year of manufacturer were also available for this analysis (not presented here) and could be used to narrow down to a specific problematic year for a manufacturer such as A.O. Smith. The level of discrimination and conservatism that can be achieved by operators in using the information from the analysis will be dependent on the amount of manufacturing information available for the vintage pipe in the system.
A.O. Smith from pre-1930s, 1940s, 1950s Youngstown from 1940s Republic Steel from 1940s, 1950s National Tube from pre-1930s, 1940s Kaiser Steel from 1940s U.S. Steel from 1960s, 1970s Acero Del Pacific from 1950s
There is also evidence that confirms these pipe mills have particular quality issues related to specific long seam types. Table 4 lists the applicable long seam types for the vintage pipe pressure test failure performance analysis. This long seam type list is broken down by pipe mill and by decade of manufacture for those combinations prone to failure. Some key combinations of long seam type / manufacturer / year of manufacture include:
Butt-welded: 1930s Republic pipe Electric Resistance Welded (including Electric Flash Welded): pre-1930s, 1940s and 1950s A.O. Smith pipe, 1940s and 1950s Republic Steel pipe and 1940s Youngstown pipe Furnace Lap-welded: pre-1930s National Tube pipe Seamless: 1940s National Tube pipe Submerged Arc-welded: 1940s Kaiser Steel pipe Unknown seam: 1940s A.O. Smith pipe
Conclusions There are specific combinations of manufacturer, year of manufacture, and seam type that are particularly prone to precommissioning pressure test failures. This analysis supports and supplements previous knowledge on vintage pipe performance by providing additional insight into the expected in-service performance of vintage pipe based on pressure test failure performance. The pressure test failure performance for specific combinations of manufacturer, location of manufacturer, long seam type and decade of manufacturer are apparent. This information is expected to enhance pipeline integrity prioritization and mitigation activities when managing pipelines containing vintage pipe.
Using the Information from the Analysis To illustrate how the information from the analysis could potentially be used by pipeline operators, it is noted that not all vintage pipes are “bad performers” and those with problematic seam welds within a pipeline system may only relate to a specific seam type, manufacturer, year of
3
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 2 Pressure Test Failure Incidents by Mill Location for Top Pipe Mills Manufacturer A.O. SMITH
YOUNGSTOWN
REPUBLIC STEEL
NATIONAL TUBE
KAISER STEEL
U.S. STEEL
State
City
Number of Failures
WI
MILWAUKEE
224
N/A
N/A
73
TX
HOUSTON
70
TX
ANTHONY
OH
YOUNGSTOWN
171
1
N/A
N/A
61
IL
CHICAGO
2
LA
COTTON VALLEY
2
AL
BIRMINGHAM
1
OH
LORAIN
1
N/A
N/A
99
OH
YOUNGSTOWN
77
AL
GADSDEN
44
PA
MONACA
5
TN
COUNCE
4
OH
CLEVELAND
1
PA
BADEN
1
PA
MCKEESPORT
1
N/A
N/A
86
PA
MCKEESPORT
60
OH
LORAIN
46
PA
PITTSBURGH
4
OK
TULSA
3
TX
ORANGE
2
UT
PROVO
2
CA
NAPA
87
CA
FONTANA
38
CA
N/A
32
N/A
N/A
21
N/A
N/A
47
PA
MCKEESPORT
28
UT
PROVO
10
OH
LORAIN
8
IN
GARY
4
UT
N/A
4
PA
PITTSBURGH
3
TX
ORANGE
3
PA
N/A
2
UT
PROVIDENCE
2
CA
MAYWOOD
1
OH
YOUNGSTOWN
1
PA
BETHLEHEM
1
PA
LACEYVILLE
1
PA
LORAIN
1
4
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Manufacturer
State
CONSOLIDATED WESTERN
JONES & LAUGHLIN
BETHLEHEM STEEL
LONE STAR STEEL
STUPP CORP.
City
Number of Failures
UT
OREM
1
TX
ORANGE
11
N/A
N/A
11
CA
N/A
5
CA
FONTANA
4
UT
PROVO
3
CA
MAYWOOD
2
CA
SAN FRANCISCO
2
CA
FOWLER
1
CA
LOS ANGELES
1
PA
ALIQUIPPA
19
N/A
N/A
15
PA
PITTSBURGH
2
PA
STEELTON
19
MD
SPARROWS POINT
8
N/A
N/A
6
KY
LOUISVILLE
1
PA
HARRISBURG
1
TX
LONE STAR
24
N/A
N/A
9
CO
FORT COLLINS
1
TX
LONE OAK
1
LA
BATON ROUGE
27
LA
SHREVEPORT
6
N/A
N/A
2
Table 3 Pressure Test Failure Incidents by Decade of Manufacture for Top Pipe Mills Year Made 194119511950 1960
Manufacturer
Pre1930
19311940
A.O. SMITH
65
7
138
132
19611970
Post1970
22
4
YOUNGSTOWN
15
14
167
31
8
3
REPUBLIC STEEL
7
34
87
71
12
21
NATIONAL TUBE
90
15
60
33
5
130
24
9
10
7
13
33
36
29
11 15
4
KAISER STEEL
5
U.S. STEEL
21
7
CONSOLIDATED WESTERN JONES & LAUGHLIN
1
16
BETHLEHEM STEEL LONE STAR STEEL
2
ACERO DEL PACIFIC STUPP CORP.
4
15
8
8
3
8
19
3
15
11
35 3
6
5
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 4 Pressure Test Failure Incidents by Seam Type and Decade of Manufacture for Top Pipe Mills Year Made Seam Type
Manufacturer A.O. SMITH
Pre1930
19311940
19411950
1
1
1
BETHLEHEM STEEL BUTT WELDED
1 11
3
4
A.O. SMITH
54
3 5
114
120
18
ACERO DEL PACIFIC
26
BETHLEHEM STEEL
4
1
2
13
1
JONES & LAUGHLIN
1
13
KAISER STEEL
2
15
6
2
LONE STAR STEEL
2
8
18
3
5
16
NATIONAL TUBE
2 5
23
3 65
55
STUPP CORP.
3
15
11
U.S. STEEL
16
19
25
YOUNGSTOWN
10
6
1
2
3
5
A.O. SMITH
164
3
JONES & LAUGHLIN
1
NATIONAL TUBE
80
U.S. STEEL
1
YOUNGSTOWN A.O. SMITH
28
1
BETHLEHEM STEEL
3
16
9
1
2
1
JONES & LAUGHLIN
SUBMERGED-ARC WELDED
1
6
YOUNGSTOWN
REPUBLIC STEEL
SEAMLESS
post1970
2
LONE STAR STEEL
STUPP CORP.
FURNACE-LAP WELDED
19611970
1
REPUBLIC STEEL
ELECTRICRESISTANCE WELDED
19511960
1
NATIONAL TUBE
6
REPUBLIC STEEL
1
9
31
U.S. STEEL
2
YOUNGSTOWN
1
1
A.O. SMITH
7
2
12 1
2
6
5
2
ACERO DEL PACIFIC
9
BETHLEHEM STEEL CONSOLIDATED WESTERN
11
KAISER STEEL
3
LONE STAR STEEL
5
9
2
2
1
4
7
6
8
29
11
130
9
3
13
17
5
3
NATIONAL TUBE
1
1
REPUBLIC STEEL
1
21
13
7
3
U.S. STEEL
2
1
8
9
2
YOUNGSTOWN
1
6
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Year Made Seam Type
Manufacturer A.O. SMITH
Pre1930
19311940
1
19411950
19511960
19611970
21
9
1
JONES & LAUGHLIN UNKNOWN
NATIONAL TUBE
post1970
1 3
1
REPUBLIC STEEL
1
U.S. STEEL
5
[9] Jones, D. L., Eiber, R. J. (1990) An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines 1984 through 1989. PRCI L51636 http://www.prci.org/
References [1] Kiefner, John F. and Trench, Cheryl J. (2001). Oil Pipeline Characteristics and Risk Factors: Illustrations from the Decade of Construction. http://www.api.org/
[10] Eiber, R. J., Miele, C. R., Wilson, P. R. (1995) An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines 1984 through 1992. PRCI L51731 http://www.prci.org/
[2] Clark, E. B., Leis, B. N., Eiber, R. J. (2004). Integrity Characteristics of Vintage Pipelines, Prepared for The INGAA Foundation, Inc. http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ [3] Nanney, S.V., Lee, K. Y. (2012). Managing and Addressing Fitness for Service of Vintage Pipelines. IPC2012-90304
[11] Vieth, P. H., Jones, D. L. (1996) Analysis of DOT Reportable Incidents for Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1994. PRCI L51745
[4] United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Pipeline incident reports. http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/
http://www.prci.org/
[12] Kiefner and Clark (1996) the history of Line Pipe Manufacturers in North America, ASME Research Report CRTD 43, United Engineering Center, NY. ISBN 0-79181233-2
[5] United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (1988) Advisory Bulletin ALN-88-01, Recent finds relative to factors contributing to operational failures of pipelines constructed with ERW prior to 1970, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/advisory-bulletin/
http://www.asme.org/
[6] Kiefner, J. F., Smith, R. B. (1977) An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines 1970 through 1975. PRCI L11677 http://www.prci.org/ [7] Gideon, D. N., Smith, R. B. (1980) An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines 1970 through 1978. PRCI L11678 http://www.prci.org/ [8] Kramer, G. S., Gideon, D. N., Smith, R. B. (1984) An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for Natural Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines 1970 through 1981. PRCI L51452 http://www.prci.org/
7
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
