Enbridge road crossing stress evaluation

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Updated Response to NEB IR No. 1.
3
2014 Class Location Management Plan Attachment 3-1 - Road Crossing Stress Evaluation
Filed on January 29, 2016
Executive Summary
In accordance with National Energy Board (NEB) Onshore Pipeline Regulations (SOR/99-294) and CSA Z662-11, Enbridge
Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) conducted their 2014 Class Location Change Survey in December 2014 for high vapor pressure
(HVP) pipelines, Line 1 and Line 5.
As a result of this survey, Thirty-two (32) Class Location changes on Lines 1 and 5 were identified. Within the Class
Location changes on Line 1, thirty (30) affected road crossings were identified. Twenty-Nine (29) of these crossings are
direct buried and one (1) is cased.
This report summarizes the evaluation of these road crossings as follows:
Design Pressure and Combined Stresses per CSA Z662-2015 Clauses 4.3.5.1 and 4.7.1 respectively
Design Pressure, Principal Stress and Fatigue Stress per API RP 1102
The conclusions arrived at through the analysis detailed within this report are as follows:
All Road Crossings studied, pass CSA Z662-2015 Design Pressure (Clause 4.3.5.1) and Combined stress
(Clause 4.7.1).
All Road Crossings studied pass API RP 1102 Design Pressure, Principal Stresses and Fatigue Stress.
Based on review of the data provided from Enbridge Pipeline Integrity, there were no anomalies identified for which a
reduction in SMYS was appropriate, or required. A list of all existing anomalies under road crossings indicating the depth of
cover and external loading information considered in this evaluation is provided in Attachment 4.
These conclusions are based on input data and assumptions (where necessary), as provided and agreed by Enbridge, and
as detailed in this report.
Road Crossings Stress Evaluation
2
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Updated Response to NEB IR No. 1.3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Standards ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
4. Basis of Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 API RP 1102 Calculation Basis ................................................................................................................................. 7
4.2 CSA Z662 Calculation Basis...................................................................................................................................... 8
5. Engineering Evaluation of Road Crossings......................................................................................................................... 9
6. Summary Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
7. Qualifications to the Evaluation and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 11
Appendices
Appendix A
3
1. Introduction
In accordance with National Energy Board (NEB) Onshore Pipeline Regulations (SOR/99-294) and CSA Z662-11, Enbridge
Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) conducted their 2014 Class Location Change Survey in December 2014 for high vapor pressure
(HVP) pipelines, Line 1 and Line 5.
As a result of this survey, Thirty-two (32) Class Location changes on Lines 1 and 5 were identified. Within the Class
Location changes on Line 1, thirty (30) affected road crossings were identified. Twenty-Nine (29) of these crossings are
direct buried and one (1) is cased.
The evaluation and conclusions of this report are based on input data and assumptions (where necessary), as provided
and agreed by Enbridge, and as detailed in this report.
4
2. Standards
The following Standards were referenced in the preparation of this report:
CSA Z662-2011 - Canadian Standards Association, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems
CSA Z662-2015 Canadian Standards Association, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems
API RP 1102 (R2012) Steel Pipelines Crossing Railroads and Highways, Seventh Edition
Enbridge Design Standard D06-103 2013 - Crossing Design, Mainline
5
3. Data Sources
Rally Engineering received the following information from Enbridge as input information from which to conduct this
evaluation:
List and description of roads at crossings and UTM data contained in spreadsheet titled L1 PAD TR Crossings
The following information was extracted from the Engineering Services Report on Maximum Operating Pressure for Line
1 (Enbridge Document Number: Line 1-Eng-MOP Report-30/09/2015) as prepared by Rally Engineering for Enbridge:
Line 1 CDN Pipe Asset Data Table (not included in this report due to volume of information)
Refer to Appendix A, Attachment 3 for the above information.
6
4. Basis of Evaluation
Enbridge has requested Rally to conduct stress evaluation of the subject road crossings in accordance with the following
Industry Standards:
In addition, the analysis contained within this report, includes review of Enbridge Pipeline Integrity data, as provided, for
integrity related anomalies under the road crossings, and confirmation of no reduction to SMYS (Specified Minimum
Yield Strength) or application of SMYS reduction per RPR (Rupture Pressure Reduction) factors where applicable.
4.1 API RP 1102 Calculation Basis

The API RP 1102 analysis within this report for Barlow stress, principal stresses (due to internal pressure, earth and
highway vehicle load) and fatigue limit (of welds) was conducted using the following input parameter basis:
o Pipe OD, Type, Grade per data from the Line 1 MOP Report (Enbridge Document Number Line 1-Eng-MOP
Report-30/09/2015)
o Material properties (SMYS, Youngs Modulus, Thermal Coefficient, Poissons Ratio) published specification
values
o Pipe wall thickness Actual ILI measured wall thickness from the Line 1 MOP Report
o Corrosion Allowance NIL as directed by Enbridge
o Limiting Operating Pressure the Limiting MOP from the Line 1 MOP Report
o Design Factor (except for principal stress calculation) CSA Z 662; Design Factor F x Location Factor L
o Design Factor (for principal stress calculation) Enbridge Design Standard D06-103 2013 Crossing Design,
Mainline, clause 3.1.3, as directed by Enbridge
o Installation Temperature 32 0F (0 0C) based upon consolidation of frozen backfill above freezing temperature if
winter construction, or as a conservative basis if non-winter construction
o Maximum Operating Temperature 100 0F (38 0C) as a conservative basis being the mechanical design
temperature of Line 1.
o Class Location Factor as provided by Enbridge per their 2014 Class Location Survey for Line 1
o Depth to top of pipe 48 (~1.2m) based on CSA Z662 code minimum depth of cover as the default basis, except
measured depth of cover (DOC) values were used, as extracted from Enbridge supplied DOC survey data, where
available.
o Bored Diameter equal to pipe diameter for trenched construction
o Soil Type Type A or B selected based on road construction (gravel, paved) as supplied by Enbridge
o Soil Reaction Modulus - 0.5 ksi as recommended by API 1102
o Soil Resilient Modulus 5 ksi as recommended by API 1102 for soil comprising of soft to medium clays and silts
o Soil Density 120 lb/ft3, as recommended by API 1102 in lieu of field specific data
o Design Wheel Load (single axle) 12 kips, API 1102 recommended maximum value.
o Design Wheel Load (tandem axle) 10 kips, API 1102 recommended maximum value.
o Pavement Type as provided by Enbridge
7
4.2 CSA Z662 Calculation Basis

The CSA Z662 analysis within this report for design pressure and combined stresses was conducted using the following
input parameter basis:
o Pipe OD, Type, Grade per data from the Line 1 MOP Report (Enbridge Document Number Line 1-Eng-MOP
Report-30/09/2015)
o Material properties (SMYS, Youngs Modulus, Thermal Coefficient, Poissons Ratio) published specification
values
o Pipe wall thickness Actual ILI measured wall thickness from the Line 1 MOP Report
o Corrosion Allowance NIL as directed by Enbridge
o Limiting Operating Pressure the Limiting MOP from the Line 1 MOP Report
o Design Factor (except for principal stress calculation) CSA Z662; Design Factor F x Location Factor L
o Installation Temperature 32 0F (0 0C) based upon consolidation of frozen backfill above freezing temperature if
winter construction, or as a conservative basis if non-winter construction
o Maximum Operating Temperature 100 0F (38 0C) as a conservative basis being the mechanical design
temperature of Line 1.
o Class Location Factor as provided by Enbridge per their 2014 Class Location Survey for Line 1
API RP 1102 and CSA Z662 Calculations were performed by means of a Rally In-house developed spreadsheet, based
directly on the appropriate formulas as contained within these documents.
8
5. Engineering Evaluation of Road Crossings

Based on review of the data provided, it was confirmed that there are no anomalies requiring a reduction in SMYS,
based on RPR factors and safety factors being at least equal to or greater than 1.0. A summary of the anomalies
under crossings including the depth of cover and external loading information is included in this report.
Refer to Appendix A, Attachment 1 for a summary of the results of the road crossing engineering evaluation. This table
summarizes the key input parameters used in the calculations for each road crossing, as well as the API RP 1102 and the
CSAZ662 pass/fail results.
Refer to Appendix A, Attachment 2 for the detailed calculation summary sheets for each road crossing.
Refer to Appendix A, Attachment 4 for a summary of anomalies under crossings.
9
6. Summary Conclusions
The following summary conclusions are based upon the evaluation within this report:
The conclusions arrived at through the analysis detailed within this report are as follows:
All Road Crossings studied, pass CSA Z662-2015 Design Pressure (Clause 4.3.5.1) and Combined stress
(Clause 4.7.1).
All Road Crossings studied pass API RP 1102 Design Pressure, Principal Stresses and Fatigue Stress.
Based on review of the data provided from Enbridge Pipeline Integrity, there were no anomalies identified for which a
reduction in SMYS was appropriate, or required.
These conclusions are based on input data and assumptions (where necessary), as provided and agreed by Enbridge, and
These conclusions are based on input data and assumptions, where necessary, as provided and agreed by Enbridge, and
10
7. Qualifications to the Evaluation and Conclusions

The following qualifications are intended to clarify the evaluation and conclusions of this report:
As directed by Enbridge (per Enbridge Design Standard D06-103-2013), an allowable effective stress of 90% of
SMYS was used as the pass/fail criteria for API 1102 principal stress calculations.
A Design Factor, F, consisting of the product of the CSA Z662 defined Design Factor (F) and Location Factor (L)
was used for the API 1102 calculations.
As directed by Enbridge, it is assumed that all crossings are trenched construction. Therefore, bored diameter
has been assumed to be equal to pipe O.D. for the purpose of API 1102 calculations.
Location specific soil parameters were not available. Therefore, recommended default values per API 1102 were
used in the calculations.
Location specific design wheel loads were not available. Therefore, recommended default values per API 1102
were used in the calculations.
11
Appendix A
Number Description
Attachment 1 Summary of Key Input Data and Results
Attachment 2 Detailed Calculation Summary Sheets
Attachment 3 Spreadsheet titled L1 PAD TR Crossings
Attachment 4 Summary of Anomalies Under Crossings
12

Enbridge road crossing stress evaluation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Enbridge road crossing stress evaluation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Updated Response to NEB IR No. 1.

This report summarizes the evaluation of these road crossings as follows:

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

This report summarizes the evaluation of these road crossings as follows:

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

Refer to Appendix A, Attachment 3 for the above information.

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

4.1 API RP 1102 Calculation Basis

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

4.2 CSA Z662 Calculation Basis

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

5. Engineering Evaluation of Road Crossings

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

This report summarizes the evaluation of these road crossings as follows:

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

7. Qualifications to the Evaluation and Conclusions

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

Road Crossings Stress Evaluation

S-ar putea să vă placă și