Calculations help determine carbon

steel piping in cold temperature relief

service
09/17/2001

Gas processing facilities

may have flare or vent
systems that occasionally
handle cold relief flows for
short periods of time.
Although nonimpact-tested
carbon steel piping is not
typically used for cold
service applications, its use
in the main flare headers of
facilities with intermittent
occasional cold relief flows
was evaluated.
Stress analysis of the flare
header can be used to
determine if nonimpacttested carbon steel is a
suitable material of
construction. This article
discusses the calculations
required to evaluate the use
of nonimpact-tested carbon
steel piping in cold
intermittent services per the
ANSI B31.3 guidelines, prior
to the 2000 B31.3
addendum. The 2000
addendum includes
additional calculations (not
discussed in detail in this
article) that are less
restrictive in the application
of nonimpact-tested carbon
steel for intermittent cold
services.
This article also discusses
simple steady state and
nonsteady state heat
transfer calculations that can
be used to estimate the
impact of intermittent cold
relief flows on flare header
piping. These calculations
can be part of a risk analysis
process to assess the
suitability of nonimpacttested carbon steel for a
given application.

Click here to enlarge image

Design conditions

During a hazard analysis

review mandated to meet process safety management (PSM) requirements, the authors checked to see if the design
pressures and temperatures of equipment and piping were adequate for the conditions to which they could be
exposed. Vent and flare header systems were part of this evaluation.
Different locations were found to have different materials of construction. Some systems were constructed entirely of
nonimpact-tested carbon steel (typically referred to as mild carbon steel such as types ASTM A53 Grade B, ASTM

A106 Grade B, ASTM A234 Grade WPB for formed fittings and ASTM A105 for forged fittings). Other systems were
constructed of impact-tested carbon steel (typically referred to as low-temperature carbon steel such as ASTM A333
Grades 1 or 6, ASTM A420 Grade WPL6 or WPL6WX for formed fittings, and ASTM A350 Grade LF2 for forged
fittings).
Still others were constructed of a mixture of nonimpact-tested carbon steel, impact-tested carbon steel, and types 304
or 316 stainless steel. For example at one location, some of the relief valves and outlet piping to the main header
were stainless steel, but the main header was nonimpact-tested carbon steel except for the elbows which were
impact-tested carbon steel.
Some differences were obviously due to different design conditions. The age of the plant, however, and whether the
plant was designed and built by the operator-user company or another company had an impact on the materials of
construction.
Material toughness requirements were based on materials of construction, wall thickness, and design temperatures.
Charpy V notch impact tests were typically used for toughness testing.

Temperature specifications for piping

Typical project piping standards state that nonimpact-tested carbon steel can be specified as the material of
construction for piping with a minimum design temperature of -20 F. (-29 C.).
Impact-tested carbon steel can be specified with minimum design temperatures down to -50 F. (-46 C.). Types 304
or 316 stainless steel can be specified for design temperatures below -50 F. Project piping standards are generally
1
based on the industry piping standard ASME B31.3.

Additional review
In a typical gas processing facility, temperatures below -20 F. are common. Even warmer streams such as natural
gas liquids (NGL) products or the higher-pressure gas streams have the potential to go below -20 F. during pressure
letdown due to Joule Thomson cooling. Relief or vent systems often have the potential for handling streams with
temperatures lower than -20 F.
Additional review and study were done on the relief and vent streams where process simulations showed that there
was a potential to have temperatures lower than -20 F. Operating nonimpact-tested carbon steel piping at
temperatures below -20 F. could lead to a cold brittle fracture failure of the piping.
Obviously, it is an important area to design correctly. However, replacing the piping in an existing vent or flare header
system typically would involve significant costs and downtime. It is not something that we wish to do unless it is
absolutely necessary.

Further study
The first criterion for further study was that the calculated temperature of the fluid going into the relief or vent header
be less than -20 F. Process simulations were used to calculate the expected temperature.
We used the HYSIS or HYSIM process simulation programs for most of the calculations. Some situations, such as
the relief valve flow from a fire around an ethane-propane-butane natural gasoline mixture (EPBC) storage vessel, did
not have cold temperatures even though most instances of throttling this fluid would cause cold temperatures. This is
because the conditions that cause the relief valve to open also cause higher venting temperatures.
2

Guidelines for determining the situations to consider in relief valve discharges were based on API RP 521. All
process temperatures below -20 F. were flagged for further evaluation.

The second criterion for further study was that the system have components of nonimpact-tested carbon steel. In
some instances, the type of steel used in the nonimpact-tested piping was similar to the type of steel used in the
impact-tested piping.
We briefly checked to see if in this instance we could upgrade rating of the steel through testing to meet the impacttest requirements. We found that it was perhaps technically possible, but not practical nor feasible, for our
applications.
3

To do an impact test requires a destructive test of the components in question. To do this for existing piping would
have required cutting out a section from each pipe and fitting. If the testing and documentation of the material are not
done during construction, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to recreate this documentation several years later.

B31.3 criteria
Although the minimum design temperature for nonimpact-tested carbon steel piping with a wall thickness less than
0.5 in. is -20 F., B31.3 allows for "occasional variations of pressure and/or temperature which shall be considered in
selecting design pressure and design temperature."
4

Intermittent temperatures as low as -50 F. (-46 C.) are allowable if certain conditions are met. At the time that
these conditions were reviewed, the criteria in B31.3 for occasional variations of temperature below -20 F. (-29 C.)
with nonimpact-tested carbon steel included the following:

The design temperature is at or above -50 F. (-46 C.).

The maximum operating pressure of the manufactured components will not exceed 25% of the maximum
allowable design pressure at ambient temperature.

Longitudinal stress due to pressure, dead weight, and displacement strain does not exceed 6 ksi (41 Mpa).5
An addendum to B31.3 issued in 2000 modified the requirements under which intermittent cold flows are allowable in
6
nonimpact tested carbon steel. The requirements now are more liberalized and are similar to the fracture mechanics
6
guidelines found in the pressure vessel code ASME Section VIII.

Piping analysis per criteria

When we reviewed various flare and vent header systems with nonimpact-tested carbon steel piping, we found that
some of the main headers met the criteria to allow the piping to handle occasional flows down to -50 F.
The pressure profiles of the headers were calculated with process simulation programs. In most cases, the calculated
pressure in the headers was less than 25% of the design pressure.
One reason that the design pressure of the main headers usually met the 25% of maximum allowable design
pressure criteria was that the flow conditions that established the size of the main headers were typically not the
same conditions that had the colder temperatures.
Hoop and longitudinal-stress calculations were done using the Caesar program, and the piping isometrics and pipe
support details were field-verified before being entered into it. The calculation of the piping stress included the stress
forces due to temperature changes.
For a conservative basis for the calculations, we assumed that the piping temperature for thermal contraction was the
coldest possible fluid temperature in the piping.
The hoop stress under the cold piping conditions was verified to be less than 25% of the allowable yield stress at
ambient temperature for the piping material. In checking the longitudinal stress, the pressure, dead weight, and
displacement stress were considered together to be less than 6 ksi.

Possible remediation

In one location with excessive stress due to the thermal contraction of the piping, the installation of an expansion joint
could be used to reduce the stress to an acceptable level.
The capital and installation costs for installing an expansion joint were reasonable (less than $25,000). The main
drawbacks of this option were the down time, purging, and isolation required to do the installation work.

Heat transfer, temperature calculations

Several brief heat transfer and temperature calculations were done on the cold flows in nonimpact-tested carbon
steel pipe to determine if the heat transfer of the system would be such that sections of the piping would not
experience temperatures below -20 F.
The calculations showed that under certain conditions sections of the relief system did not experience temperatures
below -20 F.
However, because the piping would not be above -20 F. under all the possible conditions, these calculations alone in
most instances would not justify the use of nonimpact-tested carbon steel for the relief systems. They did show that
not every cold relief exposed all the system piping to temperatures below -20 F. The calculations were based on
bare piping and did not include the impact of ice build-up on piping.

Liquid thermal relief

One of the most obvious examples of this is a relief discharge that occurs due to thermal expansion of blocked-in
fluids. Typically in gas processing applications, the thermal expansion involves NGL streams with normal
temperatures cooler than ambient that are blocked in and experience overpressure due to the thermal expansion
from ambient warming.
Often the relief situations due to the thermal expansion of NGL liquids have calculated relieving temperatures below 20 F. but involve a very small amount of relieved fluid and overall cold energy.
The total amount of fluid relieved from a blocked-in liquid expansion can be calculated from the initial fluid volume,
the fluid temperature change, and the density of the fluid at different conditions. The formula for calculating the mass
of the relieved fluid is relatively simple (Equation 1).
The energy change to warm the relieved fluid up to -20 F. can be compared with the energy required to cool the
ambient temperature piping to below -20 F. Process simulation programs are used to calculate the energy change of
the relieved fluid.
The piping energy change can be calculated with Equation 2.
Often there is not enough cold energy in the relieved fluid to cool the piping to below -20 F. For a more rigorous
analysis of thermal expansion, the calculations can be done stepwise with the volume change from the relieving point
to the reset pressure of the relief valve using piping heat loss or heat gain calculations for the blocked in piping and
relief header piping.
The most conservative ambient condition to use for the step-wise calculation is the maximum ambient temperature.

Steady state heat transfer calculations

There was a question of enough heat transfer through the bare relief piping to increase significantly the temperature
of relieved fluid for situations other than thermal relief flows.
For situations with a significant relief flow, such as loss of reflux to a de-ethanizer or a tube rupture in a chiller, there
was no significant temperature change at steady state conditions.

In fact, in some calculations using a process simulation program, the cooling due to the Joule-Thomson effect of the
header pressure drop was greater than the warming from ambient conditions through the bare relief header piping.
For the piping-stress analysis, it was assumed that the temperature of the piping was equal to the temperature of the
fluid flowing in it. It was recognized that this was a conservative assumption. For insulated piping that has a
continuous, nearly constant flow, this is probably not a bad assumption. However, it is reasonable to question if this is
really a valid assumption for an uninsulated flare or vent header with an intermittent and usually short-duration flow.
The temperature of the piping at steady state conditions is a function of the temperature of the fluid in the piping, the
outside ambient temperature, the inside heat transfer coefficient (film coefficient), and the outside heat transfer
coefficient. Equation 3 calculates the wall temperature of the piping.
If the inside and outside coefficients are equal, then the steady state pipe wall temperature is midway between the
inside and outside temperatures. The heat transfer coefficients depend on several variables, but for a given system,
velocity is the variable that causes the most deviation in the coefficient value.
Wind velocity outside the flare or vent heater affects the calculated temperature of the piping significantly.

Click here to enlarge ima

A sample relief calculation for loss of reflux to a de-ethanizer can be used to illustrate the effect of velocity on the pipe
temperature (Fig. 1). When the flare header has a velocity of 12 fps (3.6 m/s) and the wind velocity outside the piping
is 12 mph (17 km/hr), the calculated heat transfer coefficients are equal inside and outside the piping.
The calculated steady state pipe temperature is the average of the cold fluid temperature and the outside ambient
temperature. If the cold fluid temperature is -34 F. (-37 C.) and the cold ambient design temperature is -2 F. (-19
C.), the calculated pipe temperature is -18 F. (-28 C.).
At an ambient temperature of 60 F. (16 C.), the calculated pipe temperature is 13 F. (-11 C.). For an ambient
temperature from -2 F. to 60 F. with a wind velocity less than 2 mph (3 km/hr), the calculated pipe temperature is 32 to -33 F. (-36 C.), very close to the inside fluid temperature.
This type of calculation could be used to suggest the following generalities for the relief:

 A loss of reflux relief with any ambient temperature and a wind velocity under 2 mph could result in a piping
temperature below -20 F.

A loss of reflux relief with an ambient temperature above -5 F. (-12 C.) and a wind velocity of 12 mph or
greater would not have a calculated piping temperature below -20 F.

A loss of reflux relief with an ambient temperature above 10 F. (-20 C.) and a wind velocity of 3 mph or
greater would not have a calculated piping temperature below -20 F.

Nonsteady state heat transfer calculations

Click here to enlarge ima

The other factor to consider is the length of time that it takes for the pipe wall temperature to reach its steady state
temperature (Fig. 2).

Nonsteady state can be modeled with a dynamic simulation of the system. It can also be approximated by an
10
integration of the system heat balance.
Equation 4 represents the overall heat balance of the piping system with a cold relief or vent flow. Equation 5 is
obtained when it is integrated.
Obviously, piping close to the relief source will more quickly reach steady state than piping further away. The
unsteady state heat transfer analysis may have application to a system that has different materials of construction in
different parts of the relief system. For example, it took one section of nonimpact-tested pipe that we analyzed nearly
3 hr to reach -20 F. under the most conservative conditions possible.
The relief could continue for more than 45 min only if the operator did not take any action within a 20-min period and
the automatic shutdown devices failed to operate properly.

Risk analysis with heat transfer calculation results

The heat transfer and temperature calculations can be input into a risk analysis process to determine if nonimpacttested carbon steel is suitable for a given set of circumstances.
For the previously mentioned situation, a decision was made that the piping was acceptable based on the following
criteria:

The expected frequency of the relief was less than once per year.
The ambient conditions that could allow the piping temperature to reach a steady state temperature of below
-20 F. occur less than 5% of the time.

To reach -20 F., the plant operator would have to take no corrective action for over 2 hr, and the plant
shutdown instrumentation would have to fail to operate.

The piping material was not impact tested but may have been able to meet toughness requirements had
impact tests been performed.

Liquid relief flows

The heat transfer and temperature analysis showed potential for mitigating circumstances only if the relief or vent flow
was 100% gas or vapor.
If the relieved fluid was a cold flashing liquid or mixture of cold vapor and liquid (except in the case of liquid thermal
relief), the heat transfer and temperature calculations showed no evidence of mitigating circumstances to be
considered for risk analysis.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Vance Green of Conoco Inc. in reviewing and interpreting
B31.3, James Sharpe of Merrick Engineering for taking a lead role in the piping stress analysis work, and Mike
Morgan of Conoco Inc. for his review and comments on the original paper.

References
1. ASME B31.3-1999, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, An American National Standard,
Table A-1 and Figure 323.2.2.
2. API Recommended Practices 521, Guide for Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems, Section 3,
Fourth Edition, March 1997.
3. ASME B31.3-1999, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, An American National Standard,
Section 323.3.
4. ASME B31.3-1999, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, An American National Standard,
Item (l) - Section 302.2.4.

5. ASME B31.3-1999, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, An American National Standard,
Table 323.2.2.
6. 2000 Addendum to ASME B31.3-1999, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, An American
National Standard, Table 323.2.2 Notes and Figure 323.2.2B.
7. ASME Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Paragraph UCS 66.
8. Perry, R.H., Green, D.W., and Maloney, J.W., Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, pp. 11-18 - 11-19,
Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1997.
9. Kern, D.Q., Process Heat Transfer, pp. 93-97, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950.
10. Kern, D.Q., Process Heat Transfer, pp. 626-35, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950.

Station piping design: design temperature

below ambient
PHIL VENTON, VENTON & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

The Australian Pipeliner April 2010

Specification ASTM A106 is titled Standard specification for seamless carbon steel pipe for high-

temperature service yet there is a commonly held opinion that this specification is suitable for
use at design temperatures between -29 Celsius and 200C for all wall or reference thicknesses.
The purpose of this article is to draw attention to a potentially significant design matter, relating to
station pipe designed to AS2885.1 using one of the nominated standards (AS4041 or ASME B31.3). It
relates to design using A106 Grade B materials and associated A105N flanges and A234 WPB fittings at
design temperatures below ambient.
Clause 2.11 of AS4041 clearly shows that it is not. Design for low temperature is required if the design
minimum temperature is less than 0C. Below this temperature, pipe (and fittings) toughness is required
to be demonstrated, with the requirements varying with the design temperature, wall or reference
thickness and the pipe grade. ASME B31.3 generally has similar requirements.
As a consequence of somewhat arbitrary nomination of station piping design temperatures, and an
assumption that A106 materials are suitable for -29C, it is likely that station pipe often does not
comply with the requirements of the design standard.
Background
Article continues below

Until the publication of the 1997 revision of AS2885.1, station pipe design was covered by the standard.
Like its predecessors (tracing back to ASME B31.8/B31.4), the revision permitted (and encouraged) the
use of line pipe and high test fittings for design and construction of station pipe.
The 1997 revision of AS2885.1 deleted the previous rules for station piping and instead nominated that
it be designed in accordance with an appropriate pressure piping design standard. AS4041 and ASME
B31.3 were nominated as appropriate standards.
Unfortunately, the piping standards are intended for general plant use and unlike the pipeline
standards, did not provided any incentive for designers to use API 5L grades, because the design stress
for grades higher than X52 were pegged at X52.
About the same time, construction contracting strategies started separating the construction of stations
from the construction of the pipeline and the station designer was no longer part of the overall project
strategy, which in the past included procurement of line pipe and high test fittings for stations.
Consequently, A106B (and associated fittings) became the default material for station pipe.
This default became embedded as consultancies moved into more advanced piping design methods,
but chose only to populate the CAD design database with pipe and fittings complying with A106B (and
associated fitting) materials.
The material difference
The significant difference between A106 and API 5L materials is that A106 pipe is intended for general
use at temperatures where the risk of brittle fracture is negligible, and a performance requirement may
be resistance to creep.
Pipe manufactured to API Specification 5L (PSL2) is alloyed and processed to produce fine grained
microstructure that provides significantly improved mechanical and toughness properties, and is
required to have a charpy impact test toughness of at least 27 J at 0C. (Pipe manufactured to PSL1 may
also have fine grained microstructure, but it is not a requirement). Pipe manufactured to project
specifications often has higher toughness, and is subjected to increased toughness testing, including
drop weight tear tests, to demonstrate its ductility at the design minimum test temperature.
Materials intended for low temperature service (ASTM A333 materials) are also manufactured to deliver
controlled microstructure, and are required to comply with minimum charpy impact toughness (for
example ASTM A333 Grades 1 and 6 are required to exhibit minimum toughness of 18 J (full size) at a
test temperature of -45C).
AS 4041 2006
AS 4041 2006 removed the impediment to using line pipe in station pipe, by recognising the
increasing strength of pipe complying with API Specification 5L in grades between X42 and X80. This

revision provides significant incentive to designers by allowing station pipe thickness that may be similar
to the thicknesses of heavy wall pipe (the design stress permitted varies from 58 per cent of specified
minimum yield strength for Grade X46 to 50 per cent of SMYS for Grade X70).
High test fittings
High test fittings are manufactured from pipe or forging material whose properties are consistent with
the properties of API 5L materials. While they are not usually stocked in Australia, with a little thought
and planning by designers, fittings can usually be sourced from stocks held in the USA, or manufactured
to order well within the time frame of practically all pipeline construction projects.
These materials offer significant benefits through the use of greatly improved material properties, but
also through improved weldability, provided by the lower carbon equivalent of the high test fittings.
Low temperature fittings
If required, fittings from low temperature materials (ASTM 420 Gr WPL6) and flanges (A350 LF2),
together with low temperature pipe (A333 of the appropriate grade) may be available from Australian
stockists or may be sourced from overseas suppliers there is usually a cost penalty compared with the
higher temperature grades.
Designers beware
Designers (and licensees) must take care to understand the obligations imposed by nomination of the
minimum design temperature, not only for line pipe design, but also for station pipe design. The
research and nomination of the appropriate minimum design temperature must be undertaken
carefully. (For brittle fracture to initiate, the stress must exceed a threshold value. This, together with the
thermal mass of the pipe, is usually sufficient to accommodate transient temperatures associated with
depressurising and repressurising station pipe).
A design temperature lower than ambient (20C) may require special testing of A106 grade pipe and
fittings, and these tests may show that the material does not comply with the design requirements of
the piping Standard (AS4041/ASME B31.3).
Where the minimum design temperature requires special testing, designers are encouraged to consider
using high quality material complying with a nominated line pipe specification, together with associated
high test fittings, because these fine grained materials have significantly improved toughness. With
some planning, these can be purchased as part of a project order. Alternatively, pipe complying with a
low temperature specification (like ASTM A333) may be appropriate.
Obligation to appreciate the requirements of nominated standards

AS2885.1 nominates a number of Standards as being suitable for design and manufacture of materials,
components and fittings.
In specifying materials, components, fittings (and design) to a nominated standard, each designer has
an obligation to have read and understood the scope and limitations of the nominated standard as it is
applied to his design. Simply requiring compliance with a nominated Standard may result in failure