×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

(OP)
For API 5L pipe X42 to X60 used for both an above and below ground B31.4 pipeline facility being purchased to PSL-2 what should the CVN test temperature be specified as? I am not an expert in such things but had expected the design temperature of minus 20 F but find plus 32 F on the drawings. I need help understanding the logic before I parade my ignorance to the EOR. Many thanks in advance...

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

The standard API Spec 5L Charpy test temperature is 0 deg C. The minimum design temperature should be set by process and mechanical engineers and need not be below 0 deg C to incur Charpy testing.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

(OP)
So if the project is in an area of the country where the lowest one-day mean temperature is -15 degrees it is still OK to do the CVN at +32? Can you help me understand the rational? For instance for above ground storage tanks the CVN temperature is the design metal temperature which is based on the lowest one-day mean temperature.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

(OP)
I understand that for the underground portion, the pipe will never see temperatures low enough to be of concern and the same could be said for above ground portions that are normally full but what about the pig traps that are empty possibly for long periods and then get sudden pressure? If they cooled off to ambient ( say -20 ) is there a concern that they may fail when the pig and pressure come?

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

Setting the Charpy test temperature against the minimum design temperature is another question. At first sight, given the quoted environmental conditions, a minimum design temperature of 0 deg C does seem inappropriate. B31.4 stipulates the Charpy test temperature relative to the lowest expected metal temperature and API Spec 5L states that other Charpy test temperatures can be agreed.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

(OP)
And therein lies the problem. Neither of the codes gives guidance on determining the CVT temperature if different than 0 deg C. The 49 CFR 195 paragraph 102 is similarly silent. I'm wondering if the materials that are generally used are sufficiently resistant to brittle fracture that for the continental USA there is no need to change from 0 deg C. Perhaps the industry simply does not need to be worried about this and I am barking up the wrong tree.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

The need for impact testing is not based on the lowest ambient temperature conditions. The temperature is based on the minimum metal temperature at a design load. If the pig launchers/receivers are envisioned to (designed) and will operate at -20 F at a pressure of 72% of the base materials' SMYS, it behoves you to purchase the base materials impact tested at -20 F or below. If this is not the case, or the design condition is low; e.g., < 50% of the SMYS at -20F, there is really no need to do so if the longitudinal welds are suitably examined. This is an Engineering decision.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

B31.4 (2009, 24 Mar 2010) Charpter III Materials 423.2.3 Steel
"The test temperature shall be the lower of (32F-0C) or the [b]LOWEST expected metal temperature [b]during service, having regard to past recorded temperature data and possible effects of lower air and ground temperatures."

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

(OP)
Thank you sir. I looked all over and missed this.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

You are welcome. Thank you for the ""

Like I tell all the engineers here, start on page one and read until you've finished. Next time you'll remember where you saw it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

It was the way you said it. I figured, if I didn't understand your answer, the OP didn't either, so best way to explain it was to quote the code. In, "relative to the lowest expected metal temperature", relative could mean virtually any relationship, whereas "=" leaves no doubt as to what that relationship is.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

There's still the issue with the minimum design temperature though.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

I don't see any issue, other than that design temperature looks wrong, but that is not issue to the question regarding CVN test temperature. That problem I believe is solved.

The Design temperature above is probably set on one process high temperature, that often being the high annual ambient temperature for pipeline work, however we all should know there is a temperature range that is often more important than some nominal high, especially for pipeline work that is exposed to winter temperatures. And for pipeline work in B31.4, any design temperature(s) between -20F and +250F are not expected to have significant implications. The low limit design temperature here should probably have been specified as -15F, within the -20F range, but IFR figured that part of the problem out.

What the code says about temperature is,

"401.2.3.7 Temperature Effects. The design temperature is the metal temperature expected in normal operation. It is not necessary to vary the design stress for metal temperatures between −20°F (−30°C) and 250°F (120°C). However, some of the materials conforming to specifications approved for use under this Code may not have properties suitable for the lower portion of the temperature band covered by this Code. Attention should be given to the low temperature properties of the materials used for facilities to be exposed to unusually low ground temperatures, low atmospheric temperatures, or transient operating conditions. The design temperature should be established considering temperature variations resulting from pressure changes and extreme ambient temperatures.

All in all, you hardly would expect to have any problem with toughness of API 5L X42 to 60 until you reach -40F. Below -20F, I have called for additional notch toughness, but above -20F, I do not recall ever having specifyied any additional requirements for API 5L pipe.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it's not safe ... make it that way.

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

Having a wrong minimum design temperature is not a minor issue. Stating that 'Charpy test temperature is relative to minimum expected metal temperature' highlights the fact that neither B31.4 nor API are accounting for the thickness of the pipe compared to the Charpy test piece. In essence, thicker pipe could require a lowered test temperature, below the minimum expected metal temperature, as seen in other pipeline design codes.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

I did not say having the wrong design temperature was a minor issue. I said, being that the proper CVN temperature is established at the minimum service temperature, that the design temperature was not, or no longer, relavent to the question asked.

B31.4 and API 5L are accounting for the pipe properties. In the same paragraph 401.2.3.7 it says, "However, some of the materials conforming to specifications approved for use under this Code may not have properties suitable for the lower portion of the temperature band covered by this Code."

401.2.3.7 cautions the engineer against against selection of materials of improper wall thickness, toughness, yield strength, operating press & temperature and decompression.

Not having full details of the project here makes it difficult to say anything else with any authority, other than what was said already, however
1.) Liquid line - relatively lesser danger of fracture propagation
2.) H2 & S exposure - probably not
3.) Toughness requirement is largely, if not totally, to limit fracture propagation, which will be limited in a launcher zone.
4.) -15 F @ launcher is not a great fracture propagation risk due to 1.) the fracture could only go one way, 2) number of fittings and valves in the zone.
5.) Being that the number of CNV samples from a heat is probably more important to guaranteeing toughness of a long pipeline, temperature almost becomes a parameter of lesser import to number of tests/heat.
6.) Reaching -15 in an underground pipeline when it is probably the air temperature he's talking about - probably not.
7.) IFRs has the proper temperature now regardless of what design temperature is stated.
8.) Design temp is stated at +32, which actually might not be wrong. It may be only IFRs idea of what temperature is possible there.
9.) It is API 5L PSL-2, which does have some CNV and DWT requirements, as opposed to A106.

If I had give a general opinion about all of this, it would be that there is a lot more important things to worry about on that project besides the CNV temperature, which has at this time, probably got a correct, or conservative test temperature.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

[i]Sorry, but the Charpy testing required is for fracture initiation. The DWTT is for fracture propagation and is unlikely to be called up for a liquid line, but that's not really the issue. Process safety considerations would surely lead to not wanting a fracture at all, let alone a propagating one. If I had to give an opinion, IFRs needs to get a definitive minimum design temperature and ascertain that sufficient Charpy energy is being specified at a correct test temperature.[i]

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

Fine. I got the tests backwards. Still irrelavent to the question. According to what he said, he apparently has the proper test temperature now. I assume he is smart enough to realize that there might be a problem with the design temperature, because he has already noted that fact himself. If he thinks he needs to persue that further, I don't think he needs us to tell him to do it, but if he calls you, pick up the phone.

According to my experience designing pipelines as far north as Hibbing MN., constructed with above ground launchers and receivers, design temp to -20F, possibly actual temperatures much lower, API 5L, X42-60, Charpy tests at -15 are sufficient [full stop]. I'm happy.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

Quite the contrary. Everything you are worried about in this thread is based on a total supposition on your part.

Launcher barrels must be the most unlikely point on a pipeline to experience trouble related to material failure. Generally shop fabricated under very good quality control procedures. In gas lines, the design factor is normally highest in a launcher/compressor station zone. Not to mention that they are normally isolated at zero pressure.

My problem is that I don't believe special conditions should be imposed just for fun, especially when ALL indicators point to just about the lowest possible risk category imaginable. Can you identify JUST ONE specific incidence where a launcher barrel ever inititated a toughness related failure.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

That's a bit rich after 9 items of supposition earlier on. Good quality control procedures don't cover for an incorrect material. It's not 'fun', it's called process safety, mechanical integrity, good design and appreciating materials behaviour. It's not a question of identifying failures; it's a question of preventing them. There are plenty of examples of pressure equipment brittle fracture failures to warrant analogy with a pig trap.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

Then I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding a pig trap among them.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. That one's been there since 1982.
There's several more in the colder elevations of the Rockies. Others in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, up-state New York; those are only the ones I've installed in reasonably cold temperatures, and gas pipelines as well. I doubt that anybody could possibly even count all the launchers and receivers in only the colder areas of the US. If they were as risky as you think they are, we'd all have heard about them a long, long time ago.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

That's what all the pipeline owners who suffered mechanical failures as per the attached probably thought. I don't think that pipelines are risky when they have been designed correctly and the materials specified properly. The originating post for this thread suggests that neither was going to happen before the poster came on here.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

No doc there. But I check the DOT incidence reports ... at least once a year.

Don't get me wrong, as I have no problem with specifying neither the appropriate materials, or extra requirements for them when such are warranted.

Well yes, but after he got the specific answer and code reference that he needed to define the appropriate CNV temperature, there was no reason to suspect that the design temperature problem, if there actually was one, would not be worked out too. Even if not, he still had what I thought was the appropriate temperature for the CNV. Furthermore, the code allows for a difference between design temperature and CNV temperature when it says take "the lowest" of the two, so even now I have no reason to suspect that anything about this might be anything less than Kosher.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

The document was this one:

http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-04.pdf

At the very least, the Charpy test temperature has to be at or below the minimum expected metal temperature. So, that is fixed. However, when the pipe is much thicker than the thickness of the Charpy test piece, there will be a question about the validity of the test temperature remaining the same. It follows from simple fracture considerations: increased thickness leads to higher constraint which lowers fracture toughness. Lowering the test temperature still further compensates for the relative thickness differential, as seen (quite rightly) in DNV-OS-F101 for example. Some people, take the alternative approach which is to load up the Charpy energy acceptance criteria instead for thicker walled pipe. Which then leads on to the related question: is the B31.4 acceptance criterion of 27 Joules enough under any circumstances? Again, simple fracture considerations would suggest not. Brittle fracture is a function of stress, defect configuration and fracture toughness. The higher the stress, the higher the required fracture toughness for the same defect size. So, with designs based on a fraction of SMYS, how can it be that from X42 up to X120 say, the Charpy acceptance criteria can still be the same even though the stresses in the pipe wall are going up for the same design factor? API Spec 5L has a go at trying to address the issue, but strangely throws the curve ball of a diameter variable into the mix. It also states in a note, that according to itself, the values 'provide sufficient fracture-initiation resistance for most pipeline designs.' Personally, I prefer the straight SMYS (MPa)/10 approach of DNV.

In summary, there's a bit more to just picking a temperature.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

"Provides sufficient fracture-initiation resistance for most pipeline designs." Yes. That's exactly what I was trying to say. There is a significant experience base upon which the ASME and API codes are founded that compensate for a lot of the mechanics and physics that we have yet to understand completely. That quote is obviously part of that experience base.

As I have heard, the diameter glitch is a leftover from manufacturing capabilities at the time the requirements became part of the code. The other is that just inserting the requirement for toughness, no matter what the value required was, had a marked improvement in the quality of steel being delivered since.

I could agree that at times there may be more to it than just picking a temperature. On the North Slope and in Siberia, I would be inclined to do extensive tests and at 10C lower than min temperature in service. At other times, picking a reasonable temperature is all you need.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

Forgive me if I sound cynical, but as a former representative of the Netherlands for drafting ISO 3183, under the guise of one Dutch-British supermajor oil company, how these phrases generally come about is as follows:

The oil company end user representatives gang up on one side wanting high Charpy requirements, amongst many other things, whilst the pipe manufacturers gang up on the other wanting lower requirements. The arguments go round and round until, eventually, it gets down to a case of 'accept our stance or we advise our national bodies to vote negative.' At which point, the oil companies cave in and say 'OK have it your way - we will just write a tougher company spec anyway.' The pipe manufacturers then work in phrases like "provides sufficient fracture-initiation resistance for most pipeline designs" so that they don't get pestered with onerous toughness requirements from those who might not know any better.

Fracture is reasonably well understood these days to know that a blanket approach from X42 to X70, and X80 to X120 doesn't work.

The only thing that is 'saving' us is that steelmaking and NDT are so much better these days unless you happen to use substandard suppliers like the Keystone Pipeline perhaps.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

Absolutely correct. Personally I don't extrapolate anything past X60, nor do I push anything I don't have experience with. It is important to remember that codes are minimum requirements.

I'm willing to concede that X70 may have its uses. X80 with a thin wall I believe is sometimes problematic to transport and install. I can't imagine yet how X120 pipe thin wall, large diameter is going to be transported by ship, rail, or down a right of way, never mind actually being lowered in and buried, assuming it can be field welded. I think it will be a long time before higher pipeline pressures arrive, forcing the thickness up to where X++ can be handled without excessive worry. Maybe the higher pressures will allow smaller diameters, but I doubt it. Seems like diameters just keep on getting larger and larger. Maybe the risk of damage during installation will make the contractors with lower risk appetites think about not bidding.

I don't like the 0.80 gas PL design factor very much either. I think it will be too much for the operators to take care of it with such thin walls. Like if it gets to the point where you have to add as much corrosion allowance as you have wall thickness needed for stress, that's going to be a problem.

While the traditional suppliers have improved, some of the low bidders can still throw some out some big trouble.

BTW your caps key seems to be stuck smile

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

(OP)
Sirs - I've been on the road the last few days and have been following your posts on a small phone screen. I finally have an internet connection and a keyboard. First, I'd like to thank both of you for the informative and enlightening discussion. I come from an API 650 committee background where toughness is carefully evaluated, we consider thickness, material grade and condition as well as temperature. Charpy tests are always done at the minimum design temperature which is always the lowest one-day mean plus 15 Deg F. I am peripherally involved in a B31.4 pipeline project and asked the owner and their engineers for an explanation of how the minimum design temperature and Charpy test temperature were determined and if they were related. I did not receive what I considered good explanation from them and so I purchased and skim-read API 5L, 49CFR195, B31.4 among others and found no real definitive explanation, at least not as crisp and clear as the API 650 code. For this project, the minimum design temperature has been chosen to be -20 DegF and the Charpy test temperature has been chosen to be +32 DegF ( not by me - I'm just trying to understand ). This B31.4 project has mostly below ground pipeline with some above ground facility piping including pig traps and launchers. The materials top out at 0.500 inch API 5L X70 underground and the above-ground pipe tops out at 0.750 inch thick and X-52. The location is the upper mid west where the lowest one-day mean is -15 DegF. From your discussion, it appears that - 20 DegF is an acceptable MDMT for the above ground piping and + 32 DegF is acceptable for the CVT temperature. The basis for this appears to be that API 5L uses generally ductile materials, the experience has been good over a long time, the materials are generally relatively thin and the stresses are relatively low. I guess I was expecting a more definitive criteria based on a set of curves for acceptable material thicknesses versus temperature based on their grade or condition or group, etc. Again, thanks for your time and efforts, I will re-read the entire thread again for better comprehension...

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

"Test temperature shall be the lower of 32F (0C), or the lowest expected metal temperature during service..."

As I read that, B31.4, ss423.2.3, 32F would ONLY be acceptable if 32F is lower than the expected metal temperature while in service. IN other words, service temperatures below 32 would have to be impossible.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: CVN Test Temperature for API 5L B31.4 pipe

(OP)
What I sent to the owner last week was: "Is there a reasonable expectation that the metal temperature of a component would be below 32 Deg F under normal operations? If so, those components should be tested at the expected metal temperature or lower." They will likely go to the EOR with the question.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources