Training Manual for LRB Calculator (Leak Rupture Boundary Determination Project)

Transcription

1 OTD-13/0002 Training Manual for LRB Calculator (Leak Rupture Boundary Determination Project) Prepared by: Gas Technology Institute Des Plaines, Illinois October 2012

2 TRAINING MANUAL OTD Project No. 4.9.a / GTI Project No Training Manual for LRB Calculator (Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project) Manual Issued: October 17, 2012 Prepared For: Operations Technology Development (OTD), NFP GTI Project Manager GTI Technical Investigators: Ms. Alicia Farag Mr. Daniel Ersoy Program Manager R&D Director / Sr. Inst. Metallurgist Mr. Ernest Lever alicia.farag@gastechnology.org R&D Director / Sr. Inst. Engineer Gas Technology Institute 1700 S. Mount Prospect Rd. Des Plaines, Illinois

3 TRAINING MANUAL for Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Calculator Signature Page Print or typed First M. Last Signature Date AUTHOR: Daniel Ersoy Daniel Ersoy//S// Oct. 17, 2012 Title: R&D Director / Sr. Inst. Metallurgist Principal Investigator CO-AUTHOR: Ernest Lever Ernest Lever//S// Oct. 17, 2012 Title: R&D Director / Sr. Inst. Engineer Co-Investigator REVIEWED BY/ RELEASED: Alicia Farag Alicia Farag//S// Oct. 17, 2012 Title: Senior Engineer / Program Mgr Page ii

4 TRAINING MANUAL for Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Calculator Legal Notice This training manual and the associated calculator software applications were developed by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) for Operations Technology Development NFP. The information provided in this manual and the associated software are offered in good faith and believed to be accurate at the time of its preparation. Neither GTI, the projects funding agencies, nor any person acting on behalf of any of them: a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this software and manual, or that their use may not infringe privately-owned rights. Inasmuch as these programs are experimental in nature, the technical information, results, or conclusions cannot be predicted. The results represent GTI's opinion based on inferences from the empirical relationships. b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of these programs by any third party, which use is at the third party's sole responsibility. c. Assumes any responsibility for regulatory compliance. Third party users must assess and satisfy their compliance with any related standards and regulations when using this information. By using this manual and/or the associated software, the user acknowledges reading the above disclaimer and accepts their use in accordance with these terms. Page iii

5 TRAINING MANUAL for Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Calculator Table of Contents Page Signature Page... ii Legal Notice... iii Table of Contents... iv Table of Figures... v Executive Summary Background Program (Browser Add-in) Installation... 3 Downloading the Wolfram CDF application for Microsoft Explorer Running the Software for the First Time... 6 Running the CDF application Data Input... 9 Primary Five Data Inputs... 9 Normalized Defect Length Input (slider bar)...10 Data Input and Animation Feature for Normalized Defect Length Program Output...13 Example #1 - Plot Screen...13 Example #2 - Chart Pop-Up Window...15 Example #3 - Slider Bar Manipulation...15 Example #4 - Examine the Effect of Changing the Operating Pressure...17 Example #5 - Examine the Effect of Changing the Toughness...17 Example #6 - Examine the Effect of Changing the Wall Thickness...20 Example #7 - Examine the Effect of Changing the Diameter Modifying Plot Appearance and Saving Results...24 Saving the Plot Screen...24 Saving the Chart Screen...24 Viewing in Full Screen Mode...24 Resizing the Plot Area...24 Appendix A Additional Guidelines Related to Input Data...27 Input Data Considerations...27 References...28 Wolfram CDF Player Version Used in this Manual...28 Page iv

6 TRAINING MANUAL for Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Calculator Table of Figures Page Figure 1. Wolfram CDF player download webpage... 3 Figure 2. Successful Wolfram CDF download interactive web page... 4 Figure 3. Welcome to the CDF Player widow Figure 4. Wolfram CDF Player top bar with drop-down menus (truncated on right side) Figure 5. Wolfram CDF Player - Four drop down menus: FILE; EDIT; WINDOW; HELP Figure 6. LRB Calculator main window Figure 7. Primary data input drop-down selectors (circled in red) Figure 8. Five data input values are updated on plot title (circled in red) Figure 9. Normalized Defect Length slider bar (circled in red) Figure 10. Normalized Defect Length slider bar Data Input and Animation Access Button (circled in red) Figure 11. Normalized Defect Length slider bar Data Input and Animation Access Feature (circled in red) Figure 12. Warning pop-up window is generated when a value less than 1.0 or greater than 7.0 is entered into the normalized defect length data entry field Figure 13. Red shading of the slider bar when a value less than 1.0 or greater than 7.0 is entered into the normalized defect length data entry field Figure 14. Example #1 calculator screen after input data is entered Figure 15. Example #2 calculator screen after input data from Example #1 is entered Figure 16. Example #3 calculator screen after Normalized Defect Length set to Figure 17. Example #4 calculator screen after changing Operating Pressure down to 500 psig Figure 18. Example #5 calculator screen after changing Toughness down to 3 ft lbs Figure 19. Example #6 initial settings calculator screen Figure 20. Example #6 after changing the Wall Thickness down to 0.25 inches Figure 21. Example #7 after changing the Diameter down to 16 inches Figure 22. Orange box that appears when you click on the plot area Figure 23. Expanded plot area (orange box) after dragging the corner to contract the plot area Page v

7 OTD-13/0004 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Final Report Prepared by: Gas Technology Institute Des Plaines, Illinois May 2011

8 FINAL REPORT OTD Project No. 4.9.a / GTI Project No Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Report Issued: May 4, 2011 Prepared For: Operations Technology Development (OTD), NFP GTI Project Manager GTI Technical Investigators: Ms. Alicia Farag Mr. Daniel Ersoy Program Manager R&D Director / Sr. Metallurgist Mr. Ernest Lever alicia.farag@gastechnology.org Sr. Institute Engineer Project Team Members: Kiefner & Associates GL Noble Denton Gas Technology Institute 1700 S. Mount Prospect Rd. Des Plaines, Illinois

9 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Signature Page Print or typed First M. Last Signature Date AUTHOR: Daniel Ersoy Daniel Ersoy//S// 04 MAY 2011 Title: R&D Director / Sr. Metallurgist Principal Investigator CO-AUTHOR: Ernest Lever Ernest Lever//S// 04 MAY 2011 Title: Sr. Institute Engineer Co-Investigator REVIEWED BY/ RELEASED: Alicia Farag Alicia Farag//S// 04 MAY 2011 Title: Senior Engineer / Program Mgr Page ii

10 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Legal Notice This information was prepared by Gas Technology Institute ("GTI") for Operations Technology Development NFP. Neither GTI, the members of GTI, the Sponsor(s), nor any person acting on behalf of any of them: Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights. Inasmuch as this project is experimental in nature, the technical information, results, or conclusions cannot be predicted. Conclusions and analysis of results by GTI represent GTI's opinion based on inferences from measurements and empirical relationships, which inferences and assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which competent specialists may differ. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for any and all damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report; any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at the third party's sole risk. The results within this report relate only to the items tested or analyzed. Page iii

11 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Table of Contents Page Signature Page... ii Legal Notice... iii Table of Contents... iv Table of Figures... vii List of Tables... ix Executive Summary... 1 Background... 4 Summary of Numerical Modeling Report (KAI No )... 6 Background... 6 Models for Determining the Leak/Rupture Boundary in Terms of Hoop Stress... 6 Fracture Initiation Models for Ductile Materials... 6 Fracture Arrest Models for Ductile Materials... 6 Model Performance... 7 Assumptions and Limitations of the Use of the Models... 8 Safety Threats to Low-Stress Pipelines... 8 Summary of International Pipeline Incident, Codes, Regulations, and Standards Review... 9 Background... 9 Review of Applicable Codes, Regulations, and Standards... 9 Review of U.S. and International Incident Data...11 Sources of Incident Data Definition of a Rupture Summary of Database Incidents Reviewed Review of U.S. and International Test Data...12 Sources of Test Data Sensitivity Study, Trend Analysis, and Categorization of Incident and Test Data...13 Sensitivity Study Trend Analysis Categorization Summary Results and Discussions...16 Basis of GTI Approach...16 Advantages of the Design of Experiments (DoE) and Response Surface Methods (RSM) Approach Application of the DoE/RSM Approach for LRB Determination Page iv

12 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Benefits of a Full Factor Design and Model Numerical DoE Model Runs...18 ANOVA and Quadratic Regression Model Fit to Numerical DoE...18 Checking ANOVA Assumptions with Diagnostic Plots...22 Checking Standard Error of the Design...28 Solution Plots over the Design Space for Instability Stress and Perturbation Plots...29 Desirability Plots for Leak-Rupture Boundary with a Set Pipe Stress Level...33 Prediction Interval (PI) Plots...35 Four Parameter Full Quadratic (15 Coefficient) Regression Model Solution in MATLAB for 3- D Comparative Plots...37 Reduced Factor Model Solutions - Two Factor Full Six Coefficient Quadratic Regression D Two Factor Solution Surfaces for 95% CI LCL and UCL and Numerical Data Set D Two Factor Solution Surfaces for 95% CI and UCL and Incident and Full Size Test Data Set 44 Full Factor Model Solution Matrix for Typical Pipe Configurations...49 Conclusions and Summary...54 Appendix A Numerical Modeling...57 Appendix B International Pipeline Incident Review...58 Appendix C ANOVA Model Regression and Diagnostic Plots...59 C = 7 ANOVA Regression...59 C = 7 ANOVA Regression Diagnostic Plots...61 C = 7 Solution Surface Plots...65 C = 7 Standard Error of Solution and Perturbation Plots...67 C = 6 ANOVA Regression Diagnostic Plots...68 C = 6 Solution Surface Plots...75 C = 6 Standard Error of Solution and Perturbation Plots...76 C = 5 ANOVA Regression Diagnostic Plots...78 C = 5 Solution Surface Plots...84 C = 5 Standard Error of Solution and Perturbation Plots...86 C = 4 ANOVA Regression Diagnostic Plots...88 C = 4 Solution Surface Plots...94 C = 4 Perturbation Plots...96 C = 3 ANOVA Regression Diagnostic Plots...97 C = 3 Solution Surface Plots C = 3 Standard Error of Solution and Perturbation Plots C = 2 ANOVA Regression C = 2 ANOVA Regression Diagnostic Plots Page v

13 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project C = 2 Solution Surface Plots C = 2 Standard Error of Solution and Perturbation Plots C = 1 ANOVA Regression Diagnostic Plots C = 1 Solution Surface Plots C = 1 Standard Error of Solution and Perturbation Plots References Page vi

14 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Table of Figures Page Figure 1. Normal Residual Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 2. Predicted vs. Actual Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 3. Residuals vs. Predicted Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 4. Residual vs. Run Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 5. Cook's Distance Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 6. DFBETAS for Intercept vs. Run Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 7. Externally Studentized Residuals Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 8. DFFITS vs. Run Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 9. Leverage vs. Run Plot for C = 6 ANOVA Solution Figure 10. Standard Error of the Design - 40ksi Yield Strength and 15 ft-lb CVN with C = Figure 11. Standard Error of the Design - 40ksi Yield Strength and 20 ft-lb CVN with C = Figure 12. C = 6 Contour Plot for Yield Strength and Diameter vs. Instability Stress. Wall thickness is 0.38 in. and CVN is 37.5 ft Figure 13. C = 6 Contour Plot for CVN and Diameter vs. Instability Stress. Wall thickness is 0.38 in. and Yield Strength is 55 ksi Figure 14. C = 6Contour Plot for CVN and Yield Strength vs. Instability Stress. Wall thickness is 0.38 in. and Diameter is 27 in Figure 15. Perturbation plot for C = 6 where D is 27 in., t is 0.38 in., Yield Strength is 55 ksi, and CVN is 37.5 ft-lb Figure 16. C = 2 Contour Plot for CVN and Diameter vs. Instability Stress. Wall thickness is 0.38 in. and Yield Strength is 55 ksi Figure 17. Perturbation plot for C = 2 where D is 27 in., t is 0.38 in., Yield Strength is 55 ksi, and CVN is 37.5 ft-lb Figure 18. Desirability plot for C = 6 with pipe stress set to 30% SMYS, Yield Strength is 40 ksi, and CVN is 15 ft-lb. Red is failure by leak and blue is failure by rupture Figure 19. Desirability plot for C = 6 with pipe stress set to 30% SMYS, Yield Strength is 40 ksi, and CVN is 20 ft-lb. Red is failure by leak and blue is failure by rupture Figure 20. Desirability plot for C = 5 with pipe stress set to 30% SMYS, Yield Strength is 50 ksi, and CVN is 20 ft-lb. Red is failure by leak and blue is failure by rupture Figure 21. Desirability plot for C = 7 with pipe stress set to 30% SMYS, Yield Strength is 30 ksi, and CVN is 10 ft-lb. Red is failure by leak and blue is failure by rupture Figure 22. Prediction Interval (PI) Overlay Plot for C=6, yield strength is 40ksi, CVN is 15 ft-lb and instability stress is set for 12ksi or 30% SMYS in this case Page vii

15 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project Figure 23. Prediction Interval (PI) Overlay Plot for C=6, yield strength is 30ksi, CVN is 15 ft-lb and instability stress is set for 9ksi or 30% SMYS in this case Figure 24. Predictive Capability of the four parameter full quadratic (15 coefficient) regression model solution in MatLab and DX8; both have 95% two tailed confidence limits vs. Kiefner Instability Stress Model for C = Figure 25. Predictive Capability of the six two factor models and the four factor (full) model in MatLab vs. Kiefner Instability Stress Model for C = Figure 26. LCL and UCL failure stress as a function of yield stress and CVN for C = Figure 27. LCL and UCL failure stress as a function of yield stress and CVN for C = 6 with 262 numerical data points overlaid Figure % two tailed CI LCL surfaces (97.5% probability above LCL) rupture failure stress as a function of yield stress [30 to 80 ksi] and CVN [15 to 60 ft-lb] for C = 1 to 7 [top to bottom surfaces] with 638 conclusive incident and full size test rupture points overlaid Figure % two tailed CI LCL surfaces (97.5% probability above LCL) rupture failure stress as a function of yield stress [30 to 80 ksi] and CVN [15 to 60 ft-lb] for C = 1 to 7 [top to bottom surfaces] with 638 conclusive incident and full size test rupture points overlaid. Note the yield strength banding in the left plot due to the actual pipe categorization by API 5L grades. The plot aligned by CVN shows the distribution of CVN values Figure % two tailed CI LCL surfaces (97.5% probability above LCL) rupture failure stress as a function of yield stress [30 to 80 ksi] and CVN [15 to 60 ft-lb] for C = 1 to 7 [top to bottom surfaces] with 638 conclusive incident and full size test rupture points overlaid Figure 31. Percentage of Configurations Meeting 30% SMYS Criterion as a Function of C Figure 32. Percentage of Configurations Meeting 20% SMYS Criterion as a Function of C Page viii

16 Leak-Rupture Boundary Determination Project List of Tables Page Table 1: Summary of Databases Considered in the Incident Review by GL Table 2: ANOVA Design Summary for C = 6 DoE Solution Table 3: ANOVA Summary Statistics for C = 6 DoE Solution Table 4: ANOVA Summary Partial Sum of Squares for C = 6 DoE Solution Table 5: Four Parameter Full Quadratic (15 Coefficient) Regression Model Solutions for Typical Pipe Configurations Page ix