Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90127

THE 2D SPRING SPLINES PROCEDURE APPLICATION WITH PRESCRIBED ACCURACY FOR DETERMINATION OF THE GLOBAL (PIPE CENTERLINE) AS WELL AS THE LOCAL (DENT) CURVATURES
I.V. Orynyak G.S. Pisarenko Institute for Problems of Strength Ukraine 01014, Kiev, Timiryazevska str.,2 or@ipp.kiev.ua

A.V. Bohdan G.S. Pisarenko Institute for Problems of Strength Ukraine 01014, Kiev, Timiryazevska str.,2

I.V. Lokhman SC Ukrtransgas Ukraine 01021, Kiev, Klovsky descent, 9/1

ABSTRACT The problem of smoothing the spatial line based on position measurements of discrete points exists in cases where a) the positions of points are determined with some errors, b) the goal of smoothing is not a continuous position itself but the higher derivatives of it. It is a very common problem in many engineering applications. With respect to the pipeline industry this problem is very prominent at least in two cases but regretfully many researchers do not pay due attention to it at all. First, the Geopigs are widely used for the determination of spatial position of the pipe centerline points. This information inter alia may be (and in fact are widely) used for the calculation of the global centerline curvatures which are proportional to the global bending strains. Second, the maximum strain levels of the dents are calculated based on the local geometry of the dent as determined by radial sensor measurements from the in line inspection survey. Note, that in both cases mathematically the curvatures are the second derivatives of the function of global (pipeline) or local (dent) positions. The input information about the global XYZ position of each consecutive point of axis line as well as the local radial position of the dent points are given with some error. This leads to a huge noise in predicted curvatures which can overrun the useful information. The amplitude of errors of calculation is inversely proportional to the squared distance between the points of measurement. The application of any smoothing procedure may lead to the loss of the useful information about real curvatures. Thus tradeoff between the smoothing of the

noise and the loss of accuracy presents a big problem in the pipeline industry. Two quantitative parameters are introduced here to allow performing such a tradeoff. First parameter characterizes the standard deviation (also referred to as standard in the following) of the random value of the position measurement accuracy by the devices, . Second parameter is the requested accuracy of the curvature determination and is defined in terms of the standard deviation of the bending stress, or strain, . The spatial beam on elastic foundation model is used to fit the measured point positions to the spatial curve. Its main characteristic is the specific compliance of the foundation which is determined based on two above root-mean-square errors and . The corresponding formulas and tables based on the solution for the elastic beam are obtained. The bigger the allowed error in bending stress the lesser is required compliance of the foundation, . In turn this leads to the smaller value of characteristic wave length of solution and the possibility to retain more useful information about the actual short length stresses in the pipeline. Some practical examples of applications of the procedure are given. INTRODUCTION The problem of description of the set of discrete points by the continuous spatial curve with the aim of determination of, at least, the second derivative is a very actual one for many areas of the engineering, science, computer simulation. At first glance, this problem seems to be a trivial one because it looks

Copyright 2012 by ASME

like a simple geometrical interpolation of the closely located points and can be solved by the splines. Yet, the existence of huge amount of relevant publications indicates complications which are connected mostly with the measurement inaccuracies, so-called noise. At differentiation these errors significantly increase which make impossible to distinguish between the real data and the noise. The smoothing of the obtained curves leads to the actual data loss. Obviously, it is impossible to produce the effective algorithm without understanding of the nature and magnitude of input errors of measurements as well as the admissibility of the output calculation error. It is the authors opinion that the emphasis on the geometrical part of this problem is the main deficiency of the existing papers. The present paper is devoted to the solution of the particular technical problem the determination of the continuous spatial pipeline or pipe wall centerlines from the discrete measuring points which are usually determined by the in line devices. The curve geometric characteristic (curvature), is the second derivative of the radius-vector of the curve and, as it is well known from the structural mechanics, is proportional to the bending moment in elastic case and to the strains in the general case of deformation. So, having these geometrical values we can judge about the additional stresses or strains acting in the pipeline sections. The known works are based on the notion of the derivative as the function (coordinates of the discrete points) increment divided by the argument (pipeline length) increment with application of the formal fitting by Fourier series (Hart et al., (2006)), by method of statistical averaging (Aue et al., (2008)) or by least-squares method using the cubic splines (Chyz and Adams (1994)). In the literature besides the geometrical methods the socalled spring-splines (Wagner et al., (1995)) are widely used which are based on the structural mechanics methods allowing the beam (pipeline) displacements to be calculated at any loading. Solving the inverse problem, i.e. giving the displacements in some load application points we can determine these loads and subsequently the continuous fourth-order differentiable curve can be found. The different displacement deviations, , are obtained by choosing the value of the spring compliance, C , which are placed in the points of the position measurements. The deviation increases with spring compliance C and this make the target curve smoother. This method is called the energy method and for the first time was proposed in 1969 by Hosaka (1992). This name is due to the Moore and Maxwells energy approach which is usually used in the courses of the strength of materials and the structural mechanics for the treatment of statically indeterminate beam problems (see, for example, monograph of Pisarenko et al., (1979)). It is strange, in our opinion, that these methods are not used for reconstruction of the pipeline geometry, although they are used during the pipeline design and are very widespread. However in practical application some difficulties occurred:

The methods are mostly developed for known initial geometry (usually for the straight line) for small displacements perturbation. The accounting for the geometrical nonlinearity is a hard task. It is not clear, how closely the approximate curve should pass near the given discrete points of the measurement. It is necessary to establish the measure of the output error and define the required compliance of the springs. The numerical solution of the problem requires the effective algorithm that should provide the results convergence, since the beam on the elastic foundation has an eigenfunctions in the forms e x / and e x / where x is the length coordinate, and - is the eigenvalue (conventional wave-length). On the one hand, the total beam length must be hundreds times larger than for the elimination of the boundary condition influence (because they often cant be well formulated), on the other hand, for the long beam the numerical results can diverge. As opposed to other problems of the mathematics, physics and information science the pipeline can have the initial curvilinear sections (pipe bends) which curvature doesnt relate to some additional loading. We are starting to treat this problem having the positive experience in the determination of the stress-strain state of straight and curvilinear beams by the initial parameter method that was described in (Orynyak et al., (2006), Orynyak and Bogdan (2006), Orynyak and Yakovleva (2008)). The assignment of the initial pipeline geometry and justification of the required and attained accuracy of the solution are the principal novelty of this paper. Note that real ILI points are 3-D curves, whereas the proposed method below is only 2D. But this can not be considered as a limitation of idea of work. First, by the definition from the analytical geometry the curvature is the property of a small section of the 3D line which is tangent to the plane, thus the curvature is a 2D notion by itself. Second, for a pipe dent analysis curvature in the chosen direction (plane) is the goal of calculations (Dawson at al., (2006)). Third, complicated 3D elaboration makes sense only when 2D one will be recognized as a success. THEORETICAL RESULTS AND NOTATIONS Straight beam on the elastic foundation Figure 1 shows the beam and directions of main parameters, which characterized its stress-strain state.
S0 w

Q M

q d C
d

qd C

q d C
d

q d C
d

q d
d

Figure 1. THE BEAM ON THE ELASTIC FOUNDATION

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Write the basic equations for it, namely the physical and geometry equations, and equilibrium equations for the forces and moments, and the equation for the reaction of elastic foundation as was indicated in Pisarenko et al., (1979):

dw( x) / dx = ( x) d / dx = M ( x ) /( EI ) dM ( x ) / dx = Q( x ) dQ / dx = q( x ) q( x ) = w( x )

(1a) (1b) (1c) (1d) (1e)

Consider that input points locations are given with certain error and probabilistic value is described by the normal law where the mean value that is equal to zero (no systematic error) and the standard of random value . In this case the probability density ( ) is described by Gauss law:

( ) =

2 2

(6)

where w is the displacement of the pipeline points; is the angular displacement of the pipeline centerline; M is the bending moment; EI is the beam stiffness of the cross section, which depends on the elastic modulus E and moment of inertia I; Q is the transverse force; q is the distributed external load; is the coefficient of the elastic foundation. If we differentiate the Eq. (1a) four times we receive the well-known differential equation: d 4 w( x ) 4 + 4 w( x ) = 0 , (2) dx 4 l where the following designation is introduced:

The value is the main quantitative parameter of the point location measurement error. According to well-known property ot the normal law the sum of the probabilistic values

= ai i
i

(7)

where ai - the set of constants, is the normal distribution probabilistic value characterized by mean value = 0 and ) standard : ) (8) = ai2
i

ERRORS ANALYSIS OF THE BEAM ON THE ELASTIC FOUNDATION MODEL Justification of the beam model correctness For the first time the beam on the elastic foundation model was suggested by Timoshenko G.S. in 1916 for analysis of the rail deformation laid on discrete sleepers. So, the question arises about the continuous model applicability to the discrete elastic supports in dependence on the distance between the discrete supports d and theirs compliance C . Present the elastic property of the support in the form:

l 4 = 4 EI /

(3)

The homogenous solution of the Eq. (2) has four independent functions, where two of them are divergent at the infinity. In this investigation we need only the decaying ones. Assume that the external force S 0 in the point x0 = 0 is applied. Then due to symmetry, the internal force in the close neighborhood of this point to the right is equal Q0 = S 0 / 2 . The angular displacement 0 = 0 is another symmetry condition. Then the homogenous solution has the form given in (Pisarenko et al., (1979)):

wsup wbeam =

l3 S 0 = CS 0 4 EI

(9)

l3 Q0 e (cos + sin ), 4 EI l2 ( x) = Q0 e sin 2 EI M ( x ) = Q0 l e ( cos + sin ) / 2, w( x) =

(4a) (4b)

where is the dimensionless support compliance, wsup and

wbeam are the displacement of the support and the beam in

(4c) (4d)

Q( x) = Q0 e

cos

positive direction (see Fig 1) and S 0 is the external force which acts on the beam in this point. The discrete model is replaced by continuous one in the following way. We consider that the displacement of the beam is a constant at length d . If we integrate the Eq. (1e) along x , 0 x d , we receive:
C = ( d )1
(10)

where = x / l . It is obvious that l is the characteristic length, which gives the rate of decaying of any perturbation. Note, that at the origin ( x = x0 ) the transverse force and displacements are related by the following formula:
w0 =

1 l3 Q0 = Q0 l 4 EI

(5)

From this equation we will define the equivalent compliance of the elastic foundation. As it follows from Eqs (10), (3) and (9), the characteristics length l dependent on the dimensionless foundation compliance and distance d : (11) l = d So, check the validity of the beam on the elastic foundation model in dependence on the value . In Ugural and Fenster

Normal distribution in the probability theory

Copyright 2012 by ASME

(1987) paper the following criteria of validity model > 4 / is proposed. Consider the above problem for the infinite beam which is loaded by force S0 as indicated in Fig. 1. In Table 1 the values of the dimensionless displacements w( ) and moments M ( ) in the point x = 0 are given for the beam with discrete foundations normalized to the according values of the beam on elastic ones, i.e. w0 = Q0l 3 / 4 EI , M 0 = Q0 l / 2 . The numerical solution of this problem is obtained by numerical code 3-D PipeMaster, which is presented in Orynyak et al., (2007). The corresponding data are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. INFLUENCE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SUPPORTS ON THE MOMENTS AND DISPLACEMENTS VALUES IN THE POINT OF FORCE APPLICATION

Q0 =

4 EI l (2 + 1)
3

(13)

Then the value of the bending moment in the each point along the centerline is defined according to the Eq. (4c):

M ( x ) = z e ( cos + sin )

(14)

where z = (2 EI ) l 2 (2 + 1) . In Fig. 2 the support points i , where < i < are numbered. Consider the value of moment in the coordinate r r origin M 0 . The moment M 0 due to random disturbances in each support point j (location measurement error j ) is given by formula:

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 3 5 6 8

M M0 0.562
0.769 0.870 0.909 0.980 0.993 1 1 0.999

w w0 0.514
0.847 0.988 1.019 1.037 1.038 1.03 1 1

r M 0 = z j + j M j ,0

(15)

j 1

where M j ,0 is the moment in the point j if the point of the disturbance application is the coordinate origin. In case of the big value of the expression for M j ,0 can be given by:

M j ,0 = ( cos j / + sin j / )

(16)

r So the mean value of M 0 is equal to zero. Then we can estimate its standard value according to Eq. (8):

) M 0 = z 2 M j ,0

)2

(17)

j 1

) The value of M 0 , which is calculated by means of code 3-D

PipeMaster is normalized by M 0 = Q0 l / 2 . The dimensionless ) value m0 normalized by factor is given in Table 2. This is r because the values M 0 and M 0 are comparable only at distances l , i.e. points have an influence on results.
Table 2. STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MOMENT CAUSED BY THE MEASUREMENT ERRORS

It is obvious, that in case = 1 the order of accuracy is 10% and if = 2 the error is equal to 2%.
The input measurement errors influence on the output strains and stresses We explicitly relate the locations of points of measurement with the locations of supports. Assume that the error of position measurement is defined. Define the output error. Usually the bending stresses that are proportional to the displacement second derivatives are the main goal of the analysis. Thus introduce the notion of the maximum allowable value of the output stresses error, [ ] . Suppose that the location error at the point of the coordinates origin is equal to . The total displacement of the centerline point w0 and support displacement wsup are equal to

) m0 ) mexp

0.6 0.64 1.43

0.8 0.37 1.41

1 0.41 1.27

2 0.62 0.92

3 0.69 0.80

4 0.69 0.76

6 0.7 0.8

8 0.7 0.93

) ) where m0 = M 0 M 0 . In the last row of Table 2 the values ) of mexp are given also. They were obtained numerically by

this error :

wsup w0 =

(12)

If we substitute Eqs (5) and (9) into Eq. (12), we find the value of the force Q0 :

generating the normal probabilistic value for initially straight pipeline. For 2 the results of the theoretical findings are in good agreement with the numerical ones. Estimate the bending stresses caused by the moments. For the pipe they are given by formula:

= MR / I

(18)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Where R in this case is the distance from the neutral axis of pipe section or pipe wall section to their farthest point. Standard deviation of the stresses is equal to: ) 2m0 ER ) = 2 (19) l (2 + 1)

IDEA AND ALGORITHM OF NUMERICAL SOLUTION Plane problem for the initially straight beam The geometrical non-linearity of this problem is the main difficulty for the construction of the effective algorithm. The non-linearity appears because the angular displacements are not the small ones. According to the classification of the levels of complexity of such problems given in Perelmuter and Slivker (2002), it is the third level among the four ones, which requires the certain skill in the construction of the numerical algorithm. Below we propose the original iterationless algorithm.
0 1

Require that errors in stress determination should be less than ) prescribed value of acceptable error, thus < [ ] . In some cases it is convenient to consider instead of [ ] the allowable deformation: = [ ] / E . For example, if [ ] = 20 Pa and E = 2 105 Pa then = 10 4 . Thus we have:
) l 2 (2 + 1) m0 2 R

(20)

i-1 i+1 i

or taking into consideration Eq. (11), we can formulate the requirement to the distance between the measurements points:
) d m0 2 R / 2 (2 + 1)
2

(21)

Figure 2. THE SCHEME OF INPUT AND OUTPUT LINE GEOMETRY

Also we can define the requirement for compliance to provide the noise strains below the allowable ones: ) 3 / 2 ( + 0.5) (Rm0 ) / d 2 (22)

( )

Analysis of losses of the useful information The smoothing of the random errors can lead to the loss of the useful information. Assume that the real pipe locations are described by sinusoid:

wreal ( x) = A sin (x / l )

(23)

Suppose that the required continuous line that passes near the given points of measurement has the form shown on the Fig. 2. The initial input points are connected by the straight sections. The local coordinate system ( y , x ) introduced for r each elementary section for which the local tangential vector ti coincides with this straight section and ds dx is the length of each elementary section. Introduce the notion of the basic angle between two neighbor sections ( i 1,i ) and ( i ,i + 1 ) , which is r r equal to sin ib = ti 1 ti and if the angles ib are small (this r r is the requirement of the method!) then ib = ti 1 ti . The value of basic angle in the global system of coordinate, ib , is calculated:
b ib = 0 + b j i

These real locations are considered as the measured ones, i.e. they are input data for the distributed supports displacement. Then the differential equation for this problem has the form:
d w( x) 4 + 4 (w( x) wreal ( x) ) = 0 dx 4 l
4

(24)

j =1

( )

(26)

where according to the above procedure of smoothing the target w( x ) is the calculated pipe location. The solution of the Eq. (24) is very simple:
w( x) = wreal ( x)

4 4 +4

(25)

The difference between the calculated pipe location and the real one is defined by coefficient 1 + 4 / 4 . If we restrict the allowable errors by 10% then we receive that 0.80 . The Eq. (23) implies that at length L = l / 4l the displacements (stresses) dont change the sign. Therefore if the sign of the stresses changes more frequently, then results of stress determination can be incorrect (understated).

b where 0 is the known initial basic angle in the point 1. Thus we set the basic (initial) location of the required line which is characterized by the basic angles and basic points position. The last ones pass through the input points of measurement. According to the method of the initial parameters we have for the each elementary beam section (Orynyak and Bogdan, (2007)): Qi (x ) = Qi ,0

M i (x ) = M i ,0 + Qi ,0 x

i (x )= i ,0 ib + x(M i ,0 + Qi ,0 x / 2) / (EI )
wi (x )= wi ,0 + i ,0 ib x + x 2 (M i ,0 +Qi ,0 x / 3)/ (2 EI )

(27)

On the sections boundaries these equations must be supplemented by the continuity conditions - the displacements, moments and angles are set equal to each other. On the section boundaries the force discontinuity occurs, which is defined by

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Eq. (9). This means that jump of the transverse force Q takes place at the transition between the end of the ( i 1,i ) section and the beginning of the ( i ,i + 1 ) section, i.e. Qi +1,0 = Qi ,0 Si ,0 . Notice that the angular displacement is counted from the basic angle ib , and the displacements are given in local coordinate system. According to the Eq. (27) if the external loads are absent (spring compliance is infinitely large) the beam becomes ideally straight. These equations can describe any slowly changed line, i.e. when the condition ib << 1 is correct. It is the additional requirement to the input points. The Eqs. (27) should be supplemented by the boundary conditions. As was indicated (Orynyak and Bohdan (2007), Ayinbinder and Kamershtein (1982)) they should be written in the form: M 0 = l 2 EI (l 0 2 w0 ) (28) Q0 = 2l 3 EI (l 0 2w0 )
Plane problem for the beam with initially curved sections The initially curved pipes sections (pipe bends) are often used when the pipeline is built through the cross-country. In this case it is necessary to discern between the initial curvature and additional one caused by the deformation. But it is impossible to satisfy the condition ib << 1 because the angles change comparatively fast. Thus we need to adapt the algorithm. The additional information about real geometry of the unstrained pipe bends (the origin direction of it, its radius, and the angle of its arc) should be accounted for. But these documented data can be the source of errors itself, and they usually differ from the real ones. In any case our aim is minimization of errors and not their multiplication. Note, that inherent (which is not surely known) curvature of pipe bend can be tens (!) times bigger than additional one due to the pipe deformation. Common sense tells us that we need to consider the bends as the rotational stiff (non-deformable) elements. Suppose that the bend are characterized by both the curvature radius B and the initial angle , section (i 1, i ) ,

defines the additional angle of the deformation due to the bending moment. The value b ,d divided by the bend length must be comparable with value ib divided by the length of the straight sections. In other case we assume that bend angle equal to = b . Assume that the angle between the tangent to bend in the point i 1 and the section ( i 2 ,i 1 ) is equal to ib1 = b ,d as well as the angle between the section (i, i + 1) and tangent to bend in the point i , i.e. ib = b ,d (see Fig. 3). Then we need to formulate equations which are analogous to Eqs. (27). Taking into consideration that the force Q is the vector quantity i.e. its direction is normal to the tangent to the axis, we have: Qi (x ) = Qi ,0 cos M i (x ) = M i ,0 + Qi ,0 B sin

i (x )= i ,0 ib

) )

(30)

wi (x )= wi ,0 cos + i ,0 ib B sin
When we need to smooth the line Here the beam model on the absolutely stiff supports is considered. In this case the line is not smoothed. Let us find the value of the additional bending moments caused by the measurement errors. Assume that displacements w0 and

transversal force Q0 are related by formula: w0 = Q0 d 3 zEI (31)

where z is unknown coefficient. Taking into account that M 0 = Q0 d 2 and from the Eq. (31) we find: zEI M0 = w0 (32) 2d 2 or zER w0 (33) 2d 2 To determine z we perform the numerical experiment. Consider the straight pipeline with radius R = 0.71 m , E = 2 105 P , standard deviation of measurement is = 0.001248 m and the interval length d = 5 m . The standard ) deviation of stresses r = 39.56 MPa as the result of the pipeline stress state is obtained by the above procedure (Orynyak et al., (2007)). Thus: ) 2 r d 2 z= = 11.16. (34) ER[w0 ]

E = = RM 0 / I =

Fig. 3. Assume that angle between two sections ( i 2,i 1 ) and (i, i + 1) is equal to b . The difference between real angle b and : 2 b ,d = b (29)
i+1 i-2

i i-1

Figure 3. PART OF THE PIPELINE CONTAINING BEND

The availability of value z allows us to estimate the stress errors values, which occur from the measurements errors. It allows us to judge about necessity of the smoothing of the curve.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

APPLICATION EXAMPLES FOR THE PIPELINE Reconstruction of the straight pipeline geometry Consider the straight pipeline with radius R = 0.71 m ,

Table 3. THEORETICAL AND NUMERICAL VALUES OF THE STRESSES STANDARD DEVIATION

Stresses, P

wall-thickness t = 0.0157 m , elastic modulus E = 2 105 P . Suppose that the distance between the input points d = 5 m and the standard deviation of = 0.001248 m . In Table 3 the values ) of the stresses standard deviation obtained due to Formula (19) and calculated ones according to the numerical procedure with respect to the dimensionless compliance are given. We see the good agreement between the results.

Suppose, it is necessary to fit the Geopig errors with accuracy [ ] = 0.5 P . Then from Eq. (22) the dimensionless compliance is = 4.25 . This value we will use for the pipeline stress calculation. The distribution of these stresses is shown on Fig. 5. As we can see the maximal stress values 135 MPa are close to the theoretical ones.
600

400

200

2 0.78 0.92

3 0.3 0.31

4 0.15 0.15

6 0.056 0.059

8 0.028 0.029

-200

theor num
)

-400

-600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Determination of the curve line characters of the known geometry Assume that the real geometry of the pipeline is given by formula: w( x ) = A cos x (35) 100

longitudinal coordinate, m

Figure 4. THE RESULTS OF STRESS CALCULATION FOR A RIGID SUPPORT MODEL

150

100 50

where is the amplitude equal to 1 m; x is the length coordinate; w(x ) is the elevation. Then the bending stresses are: EI (36) cos x = 2 100 100 R 2t According to Eq. (36) the maximal stresses appear in the points x = n , n = 0, 1, 2 ,... and its values are equal approximately to 135 MPa when the pipe diameter is 1420 mm, the wallthickness is 15.7 mm. Suppose that the distance between the measurement points d = 5m and the errors are absent. The stresses in the pipeline for this geometry are calculated by the developed numerical procedure for absolutely stiff supports. In this case we obtain the curves of moments and displacements which completely coincide with the theoretical ones, Eqs. (35) and (36). Now assume that error of measurement of w (x ) obeys to the normal law with standard = 0.005 m . It is very smaller than value A = 1 m . But the initial assessment by Eq. (33) indicates that error in stress determination is equal to e = 160 MPa . Calculate the pipeline stresses by the developed numerical procedure assuming that supports are absolutely rigid, see Fig. 4. The standard deviation of numerical values of stresses is equal to 175 MPa that is close to predicted value e . It indicates that neglecting the smoothing procedure can lead to the large distortions of the results.

Stresses, P

0 0 -50 -100 100 200 300 400 500

-150

longitudinal coordinate, m

Figure 5. THE RESULTS OF STRESS CALCULATION FOR A COMPLIANT ( = 4.25 ) SUPPORT MODEL.

Estimate the correctness of our calculation for this theoretical example. As the displacement standard deviation is ) num = 0.007 m , thus by Eq. (19) theor = 0.7 P . On the other hand, from the real (calculated by our numerical procedure) stress distribution in the pipeline we find the same standard of probabilistic stresses distribution. The same order of ) ) both values theor and num indicates that the procedure of ) computations is correct. Notice that deviation num from ) theor indicate that we lose the part of real stress state by the errors of the smoothing procedure.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Stress state calculation of the pipeline Urengoy Pomary - Uzgorod The stress calculation of the pipeline section of 25 km long after pump station 36 is made by the developed procedure. The diameter and wall-thickness of the pipeline are 1420 mm and 15.7 mm accordingly. Based on some preliminary and the post calculation analysis the distribution of the error is assumed to obey by normal law with standard = 0.005 m . According to Eq. (33) the rigid support model may lead to the stress error e = 160 MPa . It necessitates the use of the compliant supports in the developed numerical procedure. To have the calculation accuracy up to 10 MPa we chose that = 3.23 . As example, in Fig. 6, the stress diagrams are given for the section of 400 m long. They are obtained from the given pipelines plan X-Y and profile Y-Z planes. The calculating results indicate that the pipe stresses are determined by the developed code with satisfactory accuracy. So for straight sections the usual level of stresses is equal to 30-40 MPa. But in total, the pipeline is sufficiently curved. Sometimes the conventional elastic stress magnitudes exceed 200 MPa. The change of stresses from two measurements of pipeline position The change of stresses of the part of the pipeline Urengoy Pomary - Uzgorod is calculated from the results of two sequential measurements of pipeline position performed in October 2004 and August 2007. The elevations difference for 304 m long section of pipeline with diameter 1420 mm and wall-thickness 15.7 mm is presented on Fig 7. The standard of deviation of Geopig measurements is taken to be 0 = 0.005 m . According to the rule (8) the common standard deviation for

where t is the wall thickness and x is the curvature of dent profile along the line = const , where is the circumferential coordinate of pipe cross section. It was recommended to find the value of x from the well-known expression of the analytical geometry:

x =

d 2 w / dx 2

(1 + (dw / dx) )

2 3/ 2

(38)

Yet the same problem of data smoothing is inherent in this case too. Nevertheless, in practical guidance there are no recommendations how to suppress noise except the general wording to use more than 3 points in determining the curvature by the least square method.
Plan of the pipeline
51800

m Y,

51750 51700 51650 51600 605400 605350 605300 605250 605200 605150 605100 605050 605000

longitudinal coordinate, m

270

Profile of the pipeline

elevation, m

268 266 264 10000

10050

10100

10150

10200

10250

10300

10350

10400

longitudinal coordinate, m
100

two measurements is = 2 0 = 0.007 m . Value of the

stresses, P

Stresses in pipeline plan

stresses, P

support compliance is C = 10 6 m N . The change of pipeline stress is given on Fig 8. Analyze these results. According to the Formula (19) the estimated error of stress determination is equal to [ ] 1.8 MPa . So the obtained change of the stresses equal to 20-30 MPa is a real stress state changing which can be explained, for example, by different seasons during the measurements.
APPLICATION EXAMPLE FOR THE DENT The dent bending strains To evaluate the acceptability of a dent its depth was usually used. But as it is pointed out in Dawson at al. (2006) the current industry guidance suggests that the local strain in the dent may be a more relevant criterion for judging the dent severity. According to it the longitudinal bending strain x is calculated as: x = x t / 2 (37)

50 0 -50 -100 10000

10050

10100

10150

10200

10250

10300

10350

10400

longitudinal coordinate, m

200 100 0

Stresses in pipeline profile

-100 -200 10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400

longitudinal coordinate, m

Figure 6. PIPELINE STRESSES AS RESULT OF THE RESTORATION OF ITS GEOMETRY

Copyright 2012 by ASME

elevations changing, m

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 72300 72350 72400 72450 72500 72550 72600 72650

Table 4. DENT PROFILE

Point Distance, Radius, Point Distance, Radius, number in in in in number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
72350 72400 72450 72500 72550 72600 72650
longitudinal coordinate, m

0.000 0.117 0.219 0.365 0.511 0.657 0.788 0.905 1.021 1.123 1.240 1.357 1.503 1.634 1.780 1.926 2.043 2.145 2.261 2.378 2.480 2.626 2.757 2.918 3.049 3.166 3.283 3.385 3.501 3.618 3.735 3.837 3.954 4.070 4.187 4.318 4.464 4.610 4.742 4.858

6.220 6.220 6.220 6.220 6.211 6.211 6.198 6.191 6.191 6.179 6.179 6.158 6.169 6.158 6.150 6.137 6.137 6.129 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.108 6.108 6.099 6.121 6.129 6.137 6.150 6.158 6.150 6.129 6.099 6.059 6.009 5.968 5.918 5.855 5.848 5.827

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

4.975 5.092 5.194 5.311 5.456 5.588 5.734 5.880 5.996 6.098 6.215 6.332 6.449 6.580 6.726 6.872 7.003 7.120 7.236 7.353 7.455 7.572 7.718 7.864 7.995 8.141 8.243 8.360 8.477 8.593 8.695 8.841 8.987 9.133 9.264 9.381 9.498 9.614 9.717 9.833

5.827 5.835 5.868 5.884 5.906 5.947 5.998 6.030 6.059 6.067 6.099 6.121 6.129 6.137 6.137 6.137 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.108 6.108 6.108 6.121 6.108 6.108 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.121 6.129 6.129 6.137 6.163

Figure 7. THE CHANGE OF ELEVATION FROM TWO SEQUENTIAL MEASUREMENT OF PIPELINE POSITION
30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 72300

stresses, MPa

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

longitudinal coordinate, m

Figure 8. THE CHANGE OF STRESSES SINCE TWO SEQUENTIAL MEASUREMENT OF PIPELINE POSITION

The geometry of the dent The example of a profile of the dent along the axial coordinate according to in-line inspection measurements was given in Maier C.J. at al (2011) and presented in Fig 9. The pipe wall thickness was reported to be equal to 5.2 mm. In that work the cubic splines were applied and the maximal strain was estimated to be equal to 22.16%. Evidently, no measurements errors were taken into account. Our goal here is to recalculate the curvatures based on the method developed above and to compare results. With the aim of our analysis the digital values of the sequential dent depths measurements were retrieved from the graphical ones shown in Fig 9 and they are presented in Table 4. The data given here are not redundant and may serve as input data for subsequent benchmark analysis.
6.25 6.2 6.15 6.1 Radius, in 6.05 6 5.95 5.9 5.85 5.8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Distance from start of dent, in

Figure 9. DENT PROFILE

The strain analysis The analysis consists in several steps. Step 1. The rigid supports model results are shown in Fig 10. The strains given here are calculated according to formula (33) where instead of R we substitute the one half of real wall thickness t / 2 = 5.2 / 2 = 2.6 mm (see Eq (37)). Assume that all strains are due only to the noise, which is the conservative

Copyright 2012 by ASME

assumption. According to Eqs (33) (where R = t / 2 ) and (34) we can find that noise level is at least 0.2 mm, i.e. we can take that 0.2 mm . Step 2. Establish the target error in the strain determination. Based on engineering practice we can assume that 0.5% error is quite acceptable. This is because 6% dent deformation is considered in the industry as the allowable strain (Dawson at al. (2006)) and 0.5 is ten times smaller. The data in Table 2 and Eq (22) tell us that letting = 2.2 should give the desired results of the strain determination. Step 3. Apply the spring spline procedure to measured dent profile. The results are shown in Fig 11 (strains with respect to the distance) and Fig 12 (smoothed profile near the deepest point of dent).
60 50 40 30 Strain, % 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from start of dent, in

much bigger than characteristic length, d . This means that we do not lose the useful information according to k in Eq (25). It is interesting to note that standard deviation of all smoothed points from the input ones is equal to 0.17 mm and is close to the predicted ones.
5.9 5.89 5.88

Radius, in

5.87 5.86 5.85 5.84 5.83 5.82

dent profile =2.2

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8 4.9 5 5.1 Distance from start of dent, in

5.2

5.3

5.4

Figure 12. THE RECOVERED PROFILE OF THE DENT

Figure 10. THE STRAINS ACCORDING TO THE RIGID MODEL

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8

CONCLUSIONS 1. The beam on elastic foundation model is chosen as the smoothing technique which allows performing the quantitative tradeoff between the suppressing the noise and retaining the useful information. Yet the method is not intended for the determination of the real position of pipeline in the real soil. 2. The accuracy of the method is demonstrated, and the examples of stress determination based on the real position measurements for the transit pipeline are shown. 3. The method is applied for assessing the severity (strains) of the dent reported elsewhere. The error of measurement was evaluated based on the rigid support model and after that was included into the smoothing procedure. REFERENCES Aue H., Paeper S., Brown B., Humphreys M.K., and Sutherland J.D., 2008, High-quality geometry module data for pipeline strain analyses, Pigging Products and Services Association. PPSA Seminar paper.

Strain, %

L=3d

Distance from start of dent, in

Christopher J.A., Swanson R., and Baldwin T.O., 1996, Algorithm for finding the axis of a helix: fast rotational and parametric least-squares methods, Computers Chem. Vol. 20, pp. 339-345. Chyz J.A., and Adams J.R., 1994, Computation of pipelinebending strains based on Geopig measurements, Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Monitoring Conference, Houston, Texas February 14-17. Clarke A., and Eberhardt C., 1999, The representation of reinforcing fibers in composites as 3D space curves, Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 59, pp. 1227-1237.

Figure 11. THE CALCULATED STRAINS

The analysis of results The maximal calculated level of strains is equal to 8% and differ significantly from the result (22%) obtained by the authors of measurements (Maier C.J. at al (2011)) where the smoothing procedure was applied subjectively. Fig 11 shows that in the vicinity of the most strained point the wave length, L (the section of strains of the same sign) is

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Dawson S. J., Russell A. , and Patterson A., 2006, Emerging Techniques for Enhanced Assessment and Analysis of Dents, Proceedings of IPC 2006 International Pipeline Conference Calgary, Alberta Canada September 25 29 Paper no. IPC2006-10264, pp. 397-415 Dima M., 2001, Analytical and Numerical Flash-Algorithms for Track Fits, Journal of Physics G27, pp.1481-1492. Einbinder A.B., and Kamershtein A.G. 1982, Analysis of trunk pipeline strength and stability, Nedra, Moskow, [in Russian]. Hart D., Zulfiqar N., Moore H., and Swank R., 2006, Digital pigging as a basis for improved pipeline structural integrity evaluations, Proceedings of IPC 2006 International Pipeline Conference Calgary, Alberta Canada September 25 - 29. Hosaka M., 1992, Modeling of Curves and Surfaces in CAD/CAM, New York: Springer-Verlag Inc. Maier C.J., Bates N.A., Shanks D.A.R., Harper W.V., Stucki D.J., Moreno P.J., Bubenik T.A. DEVELOPMENT OF ACCURATE REMAINING LIFE ASSESSMENTS FOR CORRODING PIPELINES. Rio Pipeline 2011. IBP1895_11 Orynyak I.V., and Bogdan A.V., 2007, Problem of large displacements of buried pipelines. Part 1. Working out a numerical procedure, Strength of materials, Vol. 39, 3, pp. 257-274. Orynyak I.V., Bogdan A.V., and Vasylyuk V.M., 2006, Simulation of the process of drawing a pipe through the pipeline with a larger diameter, Proceedings of the Biennial International Pipeline Conference, September 25-29, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. IPC 2, pp. 931-942.

Orynyak I.V., and Radchenko S.A, 2004, A Mixed-Approach Analysis of Deformations in Pipe Bends. Part 3. Calculation of Bend Axis Displacements by the Method of Initial Parameters, Strength of materials. Vol. 43, 5, pp. 463-472. Orynyak I.V., Radchenko S.A., and Batura A.S., 2007, Calculation of natural and forced vibrations of a piping system. Part 1. Analysis of vibrations of a 3D beam system, Strength of materials. Vol. 39, 1, pp. 53-63. Orynyak I.V., and Yakovleva Ye.S., 2008, Application of the crack compliance method to long axial cracks in pipes with allowance for geometrical nonlinearity and shape imperfections (dents), Engineering. Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 75, 14, pp.4012-26. Perel'muter, A.V., and Slivker, V.I., 2002, Design Models of Construction Works and Possibility for their Analysis, Stal, Kiev, [in Russian]. Pisarenko G.S., Agarev A.L. and Kvitka et al., 1979, Strength of materials, Vyshcha Shkola, Kiev, [in Russian]. Svetlitskij V.A., 1978, Mechanics of flexible rods and threads, Mashinostroenie, Moskow, [in Russian]. Ugural A.C., and Fenster S.K., 1987. Advanced Strength and Applied Elasticity. Elsevier, UK.-. Wagner P. H., Luo X., and Stelson K. A., 1995, Smoothing curvature and torsion with spring splines,. Computer-Aided Design Vol. 27(8), pp. 615-626.

11

Copyright 2012 by ASME