sureflex jip - sharing the latest flexible pipe integrity ... ian m… · powerpoint 16:9...
TRANSCRIPT
Sureflex JIP - sharing the latest flexible pipe integrity management guidance and operational experience Subsea Expo, AECC, 8th February 2018 Ian Macleod, Engineering Manager
Sureflex JIP project history
1990
2020
2010
2000 UKOOA Flexible Pipe Integrity JIP
Sureflex JIP (2015-17)
Sureflex JIP (2009/10), Oil & Gas UK
HSE Monitoring / Integrity JIP
Sureflex network (proposed)
Scope • Population and damage statistics • Inspection and monitoring review • Share IM good practice / guidance • Review technology development • Share operator case studies
Participants • 13 members, plus non-member contributions • ~40 contributor organisations
− Operators, manufacturers, certification bodies, regulators, engineering contractors, inspection / monitoring vendors
Sureflex JIP scope and participants
Full report publication • Flexible Pipe Integrity
Management Guidance & Good Practice
Published by Oil & Gas UK • https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/product/
flexible-pipe-integrity-management-guidance-good-practice-sureflex-jip/
JIP publication
Flexible pipe population statistics
15,341
11,111
3,516
365
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Tota
l Fle
xibl
e Pi
pe L
engt
h M
anuf
actu
red
(km
)
Year
All Pipe
Flowlines
Risers
Jumpers
Cumulative manufactured length • flowlines, risers, jumpers
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Desi
gn P
ress
ure
(psi
)
Inner Diameter (inch)
Pressure x ID Experience
Pressure x ID 30k
Pressure x ID 50k
Pressure x ID 70k
Pressure x ID 90k
Example population statistics
Example population statistics
17.3
%
21.5
%
3.8%
7.9%
3.4% 5.
4%
4.4%
10.1
%
4.3%
12.4
%
0.9%
4.4%
2.2%
1.8%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to
100
100
to 2
00
200
to 3
00
300
to 4
00
400
to 5
00
500
to 7
50
750
to 1
000
1000
to 1
250
1250
to 1
500
1500
to 1
750
1750
to 2
000
2000
to 2
250
2250
to 2
500
2500
to 2
750
2750
to 3
000
3000
to 3
250
3250
to 3
500
over
350
0
Popu
latio
n (%
)
Range, Design Water Depth (m)
• Damage and failure categorised in full, by; – 37 separate damage / failure causes – 8 separate status criteria;
• e.g. damaged, leak, minor defect, shutdown, rupture • Biggest drivers (in grouped / consolidated causes)
Damage and failure experience – biggest drivers
Damage and failure statistics
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1976
-198
119
81-1
986
1986
-199
119
91-1
996
1996
-200
120
01-2
006
2006
-201
120
11-2
016
Dam
age
/ Fa
ilure
Rat
es(in
cide
nts p
er P
ipe-
Year
)
DamagedFailed - LeakFailed - Rupture
Risers
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1976
-198
1
1981
-198
6
1986
-199
1
1991
-199
6
1996
-200
1
2001
-200
6
2006
-201
1
2011
-201
6
DamagedFailed - LeakFailed - Rupture
Flowlines & Jumpers
Damage and failure experience
Damage / failure rates in decline since mid ’90s • PARLOC shows that flexible pipe compares favourably
with rigid pipe based on LOC per pipe • Experience of survival in abnormal events
– e.g. excessive offsets, extreme storms
However… • Some increases in corrosion and fatigue • Rates may not have reached equilibrium • Oldest pipes age ~40yrs
– and manufactured in low numbers
• Fatigue failure in the main pipe section – Local to bend stiffener region
• Carcass tearing failures – Axial loading on carcass and axial movement relative
to outer
Failure mechanisms identified since 2010 JIP
• Smooth bore riser ruptures – Reverse permeation in pressurised J-tubes =>
internal sheath failure => inner annulus pressurised => armours overloaded
– Historical failures not previously reported / shared
Failure mechanisms identified since 2010 JIP
• Keeping the statistics up to date = > ongoing learning – Standardised reporting template created in JIP – Events can be submitted to [email protected]
• Sureflex Network, ongoing initiative to – Capture and maintain damage / failure statistics – Share global
lessons learned
Experience since the JIP, and the future
• Some additional events since the JIP completion
Experience since the JIP, and the future
Inspection and monitoring methods (extract)
• Workshop reviews; industry take-up, feedback, TRL – ~35 technologies reviewed
• Per technology; benefits, limitations, procedure, industry practice, and guidance notes
Failure rates in decline since the mid-1990s • Incident rates may not have reached equilibrium • New failure modes are still being discovered • Flow induced pulsations, can represent significant vibration /
fatigue threat in connected pipework
Experience confirms good degree of robustness • Extreme storm and abnormal event survival
Inspection and monitoring technologies • Vendors continue to develop and extend capabilities
Recommend statistics kept up to date and shared • Standardised reporting template created • Sureflex Network with ongoing sharing
Key conclusions and recommendations
Thank you. Questions?
To request standard reporting template, contact: