Prepared By: Derrick Sarafinchan, M.Eng., P.Eng. Rory Belanger, M.Eng., P.Eng. Prepared For: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC.

Transcription

1 ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Engineering Critical Assessment for: Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H) (10.9mm, 11.4mm, 11.8mm, and 12.4mm w.t.) Our File No. LEE14-106ECA.1 R2 Prepared By: Derrick Sarafinchan, M.Eng., P.Eng. Rory Belanger, M.Eng., P.Eng. Prepared For: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Revision Date: November 13, 2014 This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein. Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company s findings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of Client s instructions, if any. The Company s sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. SGS Ludwig Associates Engineering Ltd Street S.E. Calgary, AB T2G 3K6 t +1 (403) f +1 (403) Davies Road Edmonton, AB T6E 4N1 t +1 (780) f +1 (780) Member of the SGS Group (SGS SA)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1.0 Executive Summary Introduction Welding Procedure Development and Background Information for Acceptance Criteria Development in Accordance to CSA Z Annex K Welding Weld Procedure Development Stress Analysis Fracture Toughness Testing and Results Detection and Disposition of Expected Imperfections Development of Imperfection Acceptance Criteria Imperfection Sizing Methodology Imperfection Acceptance Criteria Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria 10.9mm Pipe w.t Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria 11.4mm Pipe w.t Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria 11.8mm Pipe w.t Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria 12.4mm Pipe w.t LIST OF SKETCHES Sketch mm and 11.4mm Joint Preparations Sketch mm and 12.4mm Joint Preparations LIST OF TABLES Table 1 WPS Summary... 6 Table 2 Stress and Strain Values used in the Annex K ECA... 9 Table 3 WPS Qualification Conditions... 7 Table 4 Supplemental WPS Qualification Conditions... 9 Table 5 CTOD Test Result Summary... 9 Table 6 Imperfection Categorization Table 7a.1 AUT Inspection Criteria (10.9) Table 7a.2 Visual Criteria (Low Cap or External Undercut) (10.9) Table 7b.1 AUT Inspection Criteria (11.4) Table 7b.2 Visual Criteria (Low Cap or External Undercut) (11.4) Table 7c.1 AUT Inspection Criteria (11.8) Table 7c.2 Visual Criteria (Low Cap or External Undercut) (11.8) Table 7d.1 AUT Inspection Criteria (12.4) Table 7d.2 Visual Criteria (Low Cap or External Undercut) (12.4) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 2 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A.1 Summary of CTOD Test Results E2H Project, NPS 36, 11.4mm w.t. Appendix A.2 Summary of CTOD Test Results E2H Project, NPS 36, 10.9mm w.t. Appendix A.3 Summary of CTOD Test Results E2H Project, NPS 36, 11.8mm w.t. Appendix A.4 Summary of CTOD Test Results E2H Project, NPS 36, 12.4mm w.t. Appendix B CH2MHill Stress Summary Appendix C Flaw Interaction Criteria for CSA Z662 Annex K ECA ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 3 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

4 1.0 Executive Summary SGS Ludwig Associates Engineering Ltd. has developed an Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) of the Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H) for girth weld acceptance criteria based on Annex K of CSA Z The wall thicknesses (w.t.) for the 914mm dia., CSA Z245.1 Grade 483 pipeline considered in the ECA includes 10.9mm, 11.4mm, 11.8mm and 12.4mm. The stress analysis for the project was conducted by CH2MHill Inc. which identified that operationally induced stress levels dominated those resulting from pipeline installation. Fracture mechanics test data used in this ECA was generated at the reported pipeline minimum design metal temperature (MDMT) of -5 C and is considered directly applicable to loading conditions at or above this temperature. Based on the material fracture toughness results determined at this temperature, the flaw size limits were determined as per CSA Z Annex K. Further analysis or testing (outside the scope of this assessment) may be necessary to rationalize extension of the flaw size acceptance criteria to lower temperature loading conditions (particularly low temperature lowering in conditions). ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 4 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

5 2.0 Introduction The development of a CSA Z Annex K Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) requires compilation and associated information relating to the pipeline, including design and stress analysis, mechanical property evaluation, and welding inspection methodology to produce these alternative standards of acceptance. A summary of the pertinent background information (including weld procedures, stress analysis, fracture mechanics test data, AUT procedure, and pipe bevel geometry/aut zone schematics) are detailed in Section 3. The Annex K ECA methodology and tabulated imperfection acceptance criteria are detailed in Section 4. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 5 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

6 3.0 Welding Procedure Development and Background Information for Acceptance Criteria Development in Accordance to CSA Z Annex K 3.1 Welding The method of welding to be employed in the pipeline construction considered in the acceptance criteria development was a mechanized GMAW/PGMAW process with provision for a semi-automatic GMAW root backweld. The welding technology is supplied by CRC Welding Systems Inc. (GMAW root and hot pass with PGMAW single and/or dual torch fill and cap). 3.2 Weld Procedure Development The welding procedures were developed by CRC Welding Systems Inc. in their Houston, Texas facility with mechanical testing required for procedure qualification and ECA development conducted by SGS Ludwig Associates Ltd. in their Edmonton Laboratory. This testing included mechanical and fracture toughness testing in accordance with CSA Z Section 7 and Annex K respectively for 11.4 mm wall thickness material. Supplemental Annex K testing was conducted on 10.9mm, 11.8mm, and 12.4 mm wall thickness materials. The following table identifies the qualified weld procedure specification (WPS) used to prepare the test coupons submitted for procedure qualification testing: Table 1 WPS Summary Pipe Diameter Wall Thicknesses WPS No. (mm) (mm) ENB-A-WPS , 11.4, 11.8, and Stress Analysis Stress analysis results were received from CH2MHill Inc. engineering personnel (project# ). It was determined that for the areas of the pipeline covered by the engineering critical assessment (ECA), the maximum longitudinal stress level is dominated by operational loading with stress levels varying significantly with wall thickness and location. A summary table of the pertinent high stress weldments by wall thickness, detailing the Annex K2.1 factored maximum effective applied tensile bending stress as provided by CH2MHILL is included in ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 6 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

7 Appendix B. As the ECA requires that certain calculations be conducted using applied strain, the associated strain levels were conservatively estimated using an appropriate Ramberg Osgood relationship (accounting for the biaxial condition). The reported stress and corresponding strain values used in this assessment are as follows: Pipe Wall Thickness (mm) Table 2 Stress and Strain Values used in the Annex K ECA Max Longitudinal Stress MPa %SMYS Applied Longitudinal Strain (%) In accordance with CSA Z Annex K, the size of allowable imperfections is considered sufficiently limited, such that no imperfection growth due to fatigue will be anticipated. The ECA results, however, are only to be applied to weldments other than those within pumping stations and to welds of equal nominal wall thickness (w.t.). Welds to pipe ends that are counter bored and taper transitioned to match wall thickness will not be evaluated using the calculated ECA flaw acceptance criteria. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 7 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

8 3.4 Fracture Toughness Testing and Results Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) testing was conducted in accordance with CSA Z Annex K on mechanized welded procedure qualification coupons of 914mm diameter and 11.4mm wall thickness (w.t.). These coupons had been prepared with a single WPS but with specific welding conditions that could potentially affect the mechanical performance of the weldment. The following table presents the WPS used to prepare the procedure qualification coupon and the conditions considered in the various coupons: WPS No. Table 3 WPS Qualification Conditions Pipe Diameter (mm) Wall Thickness (mm) ENB-A-WPS Qualification Conditions Evaluated Dual Torch Low Interpass Dual Torch Nominal Interpass GMAW Backweld Single Torch Low Interpass Review of the CTOD test data associated with this ECA identified a susceptibility of the pipe body material to develop transverse splits perpendicular to the notch plane during testing. Upon rigorous consideration of the cause, ramifications, and irrelevance of this phenomenon to the ECA, it was deemed prudent to disregard CTOD test data associated with transverse splitinduced significant/critical load drops (e.g. pop-ins) in accordance with Annex K Clause K.4.4.3: Pop-ins shall be considered as the controlling event unless they can be attributed with certainty to such spurious occurrences as plate delamination. CSA Z permits extension of qualification to other wall thicknesses providing appropriate suitability of pipe manufacture and that the extension is within +/- 10% of the qualified pipe material wall thickness. Although the code clause would suitably cover the 10.9mm, 11.8mm and 12.4mm wall thickness materials for both conventional procedure qualification testing as well as fracture mechanics testing, supplemental CTOD testing was conducted on coupons welded with these wall thicknesses. This supplemental testing only included Group 2 and Group 4 weld zones and the choice of qualification conditions evaluated was based on reports ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 8 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

9 from Enbridge technical staff indicating that dual torch nominal inter-pass conditions would be most likely encountered during field welding. Since the weld metal zones (Group 1 and Group 3) would not be significantly affected by parent metal chemistries, and since the same weld procedure was implemented to all wall thicknesses, this sensitivity evaluation provides relevant data with a conservative extension of qualification. The following table presents the WPS used to prepare the procedure qualification coupons and the conditions considered in those supplementary test coupons: WPS No. ENB-A-WPS-28 Table 4 Supplemental WPS Qualification Conditions Pipe Diameter (mm) Wall Thickness (mm) Qualification Conditions Evaluated Dual Torch Nominal Interpass All CTOD testing was conducted at a minimum design metal temperature (MDMT) of -5 C. The following is a summary of the test results showing the lowest specimen CTOD value selected from each set of specimens tested: Table 5 CTOD Test Results Summary Pipe Wall Thickness (mm) CTOD Results (mm)** Mainline* Backweld N/A N/A N/A * Lowest value taken from all variants of standard mainline procedure qualification coupons. ** CTOD results for all testing are presented in Appendix A. Based on the CTOD results, the ECA for all wall thicknesses excluding 10.9 mm conservatively assumed a CTOD value of 0.21 mm, while the 10.9 mm wall thickness was assessed with a CTOD of 0.10 mm. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 9 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

10 3.5 Detection and Disposition of Expected Imperfections The method chosen for non-destructive testing (NDT) of the weldments utilizing this ECA is automated ultrasonic examination with testing to be conducted by RTD Quality Services Inc., using their "Rotoscan" system. The RTD Automated Ultrasonic Testing (AUT) procedures to be employed in the project are 13-C-053-AUT (general procedure) and 13-C-055-AUT-S (specific procedure). The imperfections produced by the mechanized GMAW processes are expected to be primarily lack of fusion on the bevel and land preparations. The selection of the phased array transducer focus locations and angles was based on the design of the joint preparation. The AUT interpretation will be based on a zonal methodology from root through final fill and cap, with strategically focused sound paths from phased array transducers along the root, the hot pass and fill bevels to aid in establishing location and depth sizing of inherent fusion flaws. This inspection strategy has been developed by RTD in compliance with Annex K (Clause K.5.3.2) and is detailed in the AUT procedures identified above. The following sketches illustrate the joint preparation and the specific AUT inspection zones for the wall thicknesses considered: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 10 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

11 Pipe Bevel Geometry AUT Zone Heights Adopted 6.1 mm mm (Cap) 2.0 mm (3rd Fill) 2.0 mm (2nd Fill) mm (1rst Fill) 2.3 mm 1.2 mm 1.3 mm 2.3 mm (Hot Pass) 1.2 mm (Cross Pen) 1.3 mm (Root) 37.5 wt = 10.9 mm Dstat = 2.7 mm 1.0 mm (Cap) mm (3rd Fill) 6.6 mm 2.2 mm (2nd Fill) mm (1rst Fill) 2.3 mm 1.2 mm 1.3 mm 2.3 mm (Hot Pass) 1.2 mm (Cross Pen) 1.3 mm (Root) 37.5 wt = 11.4 mm Dstat = 2.9 mm Sketch mm and 11.4mm Joint Preparations Note: Weld cap imperfections such as external undercut, low cap, and porosity will be evaluated by visual techniques employing appropriate measurement instrumentation to determine imperfection depth and length. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 11 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

12 Pipe Bevel Geometry AUT Zone Heights Adopted 1.0 mm (Cap) mm (3rd Fill) 7.0 mm 2.3 mm (2nd Fill) mm (1rst Fill) 2.3 mm 1.2 mm 1.3 mm 2.3 mm (Hot Pass) 1.2 mm (Cross Pen) 1.3 mm (Root) 37.5 wt = 11.8 mm Dstat = 3.0 mm 1.0 mm (Cap) mm (3rd Fill) 7.6 mm 2.5 mm (2nd Fill) mm (1rst Fill) 2.3 mm 1.2 mm 1.3 mm 2.3 mm (Hot Pass) 1.2 mm (Cross Pen) 1.3 mm (Root) 37.5 wt = 12.4 mm Dstat = 3.1 mm Sketch mm and 12.4mm Joint Preparations Note: Weld cap imperfections such as external undercut, low cap, and porosity will be evaluated by visual techniques employing appropriate measurement instrumentation to determine imperfection depth and length. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 12 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

13 4.0 Development of Imperfection Acceptance Criteria 4.1 Imperfection Sizing Methodology Flaw assessment plots (which identify the maximum allowable imperfection length for a given imperfection depth) were prepared for each wall thickness. From these plots, the flaw acceptance criteria were developed. The maximum allowable imperfection dimensions were determined using CSA Z Annex K analysis and incorporated the stress/strain values and minimum fracture toughness values presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. The vertical height dimension of an imperfection is defined as flaw depth and the circumferential extent is defined as flaw length. Flaws are classified as either surface imperfections or embedded imperfections per Clause K and are assessed accordingly. Surface imperfections include both actual surface flaws and near surface flaws (specifically those with a remaining ligament (p defined as closest proximity of imperfection to surface of weldment ) that is less than the flaw depth (d)). Eligible near surface flaws are reclassified as surface imperfections with an assigned depth equal to the measured flaw depth plus p. Clause K specifies a maximum imperfection depth limit (sometimes referred to as the statutory depth limit, D stat ) of 25% w.t. for liquid service. The intent of this clause is to limit the stress intensity to prevent growth by fatigue. 1 The length sizing evaluations for given imperfection depths were based on three limiting criteria, specifically: Maximum tolerable imperfection length of linear indications cannot exceed 10% of weld circumference (statutory length criteria). Maximum tolerable imperfection length cannot exceed plastic collapse criteria. Maximum tolerable imperfection length cannot exceed brittle fracture criteria. 1 CSA Z662 Annex K (commentary): The maximum depths permitted to be considered were determined so as to ensure that the resulting stress intensity under the most severe fatigue loading caused by pressure fluctuations would be less than the threshold stress intensity for fatigue growth. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 13 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

14 Flaw interaction assessment criteria in the code are both ambiguous and lacking. The limited guidance (i.e. imperfections shall be considered to interact if the distance between their indications separation is less than the length of the smaller indication ; as specified in Clause K7.2) appears to only consider flaws present within the same weld pass. In the event of positive interaction, the effective imperfection length to be considered is the entire distance from end to end of all interacting imperfections. No criteria is provided for vertical interaction (in which the effective vertical height of the flaw also increases), coplanar interaction (i.e. flaws in close proximity but on opposite sides of the weld) and maximum allowable cumulative flaw area to resist plastic collapse. In applying appropriate engineering discretion, this ECA purposes to be specific and conservative with regards to interaction criteria. These supplemental requirements are detailed in Appendix C. 4.2 Imperfection Acceptance Criteria The following table presents the imperfection categories and their respective abbreviations used in the ECA analysis: Table 6 Imperfection Categorization Abbreviation Description Low Cap/EUC Low Cap/External Undercut LFS Cap Lack of Fusion Surface Cap LFSS Fill Zone 3 Lack of Fusion along Fill Inspection Zone 3 LFSS Fill Zone 2 Lack of Fusion along Fill Inspection Zone 2 LFSS Fill Zone 1 Lack of Fusion along Fill Inspection Zone 1 LFSS Hot Pass Upper Lack of Fusion along Hot Pass Upper Inspection Zone LFSS Hot Pass Lower Lack of Fusion along Hot Pass Lower Inspection Zone LFSS Hot Pass Lack of Fusion along Hot Pass Inspection Zone LCP Lack of Cross Penetration LFS Root Lack of Fusion Surface Root LF Start/Stop Start/Stop lack of fusion (At any interpass location between hot pass and final fill) P Cluster Porosity in all AUT inspection zones except Cap BT Burn Through SI Stacked Imperfection flaws present in adjacent inspection zones ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 14 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

15 The zonal methodology purposes to be conservative in flaw depth sizing. A flaw detected within a single inspection zone is assumed to occupy the entire zone, regardless of its actual size. The flaw is therefore assigned this assumed depth for purposes of determining maximum permissible length. Based on the selected inspection zone heights, stacked imperfections will be acceptable in aggregate up to statutory depth limits. Stacked imperfections exceeding statutory depth limits are generally not acceptable, although two exceptions to this rule have been rationalized. The first exception applies to short length lack of fusion flaws ( 15mm length) normally associated with start/stops and most often associated with dual torch processes. The depth of a start/stop flaw is inherently limited to the thickness of the weld pass at that position but may be detected in two adjacent AUT inspection zones (i.e. nominally exceeding 25% w.t.). However, due to the short length of such flaws, an exception to the statutory depth limit can be exercised. The justification for this exception is based on the premise that the maximum statutory depth limit and physical loading conditions presented in CSA Z662 Annex K defines a fatigue tolerance or limit. Relative to long permissible flaws, this fixed limit on flaw depth is highly conservative in application to short length start/stop type flaws. While maintaining the intent of the code for liquid service, this single value limit can be augmented with a curve that delivers constant stress intensity, providing a relaxed depth restriction to short flaws. The expanded depth limits, however, cannot exceed fracture control limits. For this assessment, a constant stress intensity (K I ) curve (d vs. l) was constructed using a BS 7910 crack assessment procedure considering the appropriate flaw geometry and loading. It was determined that short start/stop induced flaws may exist within two adjacent AUT zones providing their aggregate ultrasonic response (zone A + zone B) does not exceed 150% full screen height (FSH). Note that the installation of the HP zone nominally consumes the top half of the CP zone. A start/stop flaw of the hot pass can inherently result in LOF on the upper half of the CP zone in conjunction with LOF along the HP bevel. Therefore, the CP and HP AUT zones represent appropriate adjacent AUT zones to account for a HP start/stop LOF flaw. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 15 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

16 The second exception involves assessments of cluster porosity. Porosity has been conservatively assessed as a planar flaw with a maximum rationalized depth of 25% w.t. For purpose of AUT inspection, it is considered acceptable when porosity is observed in up to two adjacent inspection zones for a limited length. The following Tables 7a.1, 7b.1, 7c.1 and 7d.1 present the flaw acceptance criteria to be employed during AUT for the Edmonton to Hardisty (E2H) Project. Surface imperfections on the pipe OD may be assessed using visual evaluation criteria presented in Tables 7a.2, 7b.2, 7c.2 and 7d Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria mm Pipe w.t. Table 7a.1 AUT Inspection Criteria Interpretation Category/Zone Assumed Depth* Adopted Category (mm) Imperfection Length (mm) LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone 3 + LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 2 + LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 1 + LFSS Fill Zone (+ 2.0)** 0 LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Hot Pass + LFSS Fill Zone (+ 2.5)** 0 LFSS Hot Pass LCP + LFSS Hot Pass 2.9 (+ 1.9)** 0 LCP LFS Root + LCP LFS Root LF Start/Stop (Note 2) 15 BT P 2.7 (Note 3) 130 SI (Note 4) Table 7a.2 Visual Criteria*** (Low Cap or External Undercut) Imperfection Depth (mm) Adopted Imperfection Length (mm) d d > (Note 5) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 16 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

17 4.2.2 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria mm Pipe w.t. Table 7b.1 AUT Inspection Criteria Interpretation Category/Zone Assumed Depth* Adopted Category (mm) Imperfection Length (mm) LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone 3 + LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 2 + LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 1 + LFSS Fill Zone (+ 2.2)** 0 LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Hot Pass + LFSS Fill Zone (+ 2.5)** 0 LFSS Hot Pass LCP + LFSS Hot Pass 2.9 (+ 1.9)** 0 LCP LFS Root + LCP LFS Root LF Start/Stop (Note 2) 15 BT P 2.9 (Note 3) 280 SI (Note 4) Table 7b.2 Visual Criteria*** (Low Cap or External Undercut) Imperfection Depth (mm) Adopted Imperfection Length (mm) d d > (Note 5) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 17 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

18 4.2.3 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria mm Pipe w.t. Table 7c.1 AUT Inspection Criteria Interpretation Category/Zone Assumed Depth* Adopted Category (mm) Imperfection Length (mm) LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone 3 + LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 2 + LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 1 + LFSS Fill Zone (+ 2.3)** 0 LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Hot Pass + LFSS Fill Zone (+2.5)** 0 LFSS Hot Pass LCP + LFSS Hot Pass 2.9 (+ 1.9)** 0 LCP LFS Root + LCP LFS Root LF Start/Stop (Note 2) 15 BT P 3.0 (Note 3) 200 SI (Note 4) Table 7c.2 Visual Criteria*** (Low Cap or External Undercut) Imperfection Depth (mm) Adopted Imperfection Length (mm) d d > (Note 5) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 18 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

19 4.2.4 Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project (E2H); ECA Criteria mm Pipe w.t. Table 7d.1 AUT Inspection Criteria Interpretation Category/Zone Assumed Depth* Adopted Category (mm) Imperfection Length (mm) LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone 3 + LFS Cap LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 2 + LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Fill Zone 1 + LFSS Fill Zone (+ 2.6)** 0 LFSS Fill Zone LFSS Hot Pass + LFSS Fill Zone (+ 2.5)** 0 LFSS Hot Pass LCP + LFSS Hot Pass 2.9 (+1.9)** 0 LCP LFS Root + LCP LFS Root LF Start/Stop (Note 2) 15 BT P 3.1 (Note 3) 270 SI (Note 4) Table 7d.2 Visual Criteria*** (Low Cap or External Undercut) Imperfection Depth (mm) Adopted Imperfection Length (mm) d d > (Note 5) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 19 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

20 Notes: * Observed imperfections are assumed to be the full depth of the zone defined by the imperfection category description in Tables 7a 7d (with the exception of LF Start/Stop, as defined in Note 2 below), and therefore are assigned an assumed depth (which purposes to be conservative). The AUT zone depths are illustrated in Section Sketches 1 & 2 ** Represents the remaining ligament from the anticipated nearest point on the imperfection to weldment surface. This remaining ligament is associated with surface interaction and is referenced as p in CSA Z *** The term Visual indicates that the depths of the imperfections are to be sized with appropriate measuring instrumentation. 1. Evaluated as non-surface interacting (in accordance with clause K ) as verified by procedure qualification weld profiles. 2. Flaws may exist within two adjacent AUT zones providing their aggregate ultrasonic response (zone A + zone B) does not exceed 150% full screen height (FSH). 3. Cluster porosity is to be considered as a linear imperfection with an assumed depth of the statutory limit regardless of wall thickness or inspection zone depth. For purposes of AUT inspection, incidents of porosity are tolerable up to two adjacent inspection zones. Interaction of adjacent flaws to the zone of porosity will consider the zone with a vertical height of the statutory limit. Porosity in the cap will be addressed by visual means in accordance with workmanship criteria. 4. Permissible vertical flaw interaction is included in the table. Length interaction must be considered for flaws circumferentially separated by a distance less than the smaller length of the flaws considered. 5. Cap penetration depth (non-reinforced cap layer) is assumed to not exceed 2mm such that associated flaws cannot exceed 2mm depth. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. Page. 20 File No. LEE ECA.1 R2

21 APPENDIX A.1 Summary of CTOD Test Results Edmonton to Hardisty, NPS 36, 11.4mm w.t. A.2 Summary of CTOD Test Results Edmonton to Hardisty, NPS 36, 10.9mm w.t. A.3 Summary of CTOD Test Results Edmonton to Hardisty, NPS 36, 11.8mm w.t. A.4 Summary of CTOD Test Results Edmonton to Hardisty, NPS 36, 12.4mm w.t. B C CH2MHill Stress Summary Flaw Interaction Criteria for CSA Z662 Annex K ECA ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

22 APPENDIX A.1 CTOD Test Results Summary of Pipe Circumferential Welds (Edmonton to Hardisty 11.4mm w.t.) (From SGS Ludwig Associates Ltd.) The following table identifies the coupon descriptions used for Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) testing: Table 1 Coupon Identification Weld ID No. Weld Description SGS Ludwig Test No. E2H-A (ST-LI) Single Torch Low Interpass E E2H-A (DT-LI) Dual Torch Low Interpass E E2H-A / E2H-A (backup) (DT-NI) Dual Torch Nominal Interpass GMAW Backweld E CTOD testing was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in BS 7448 Part 2 and CSA Z Annex K. Testing was performed on specimens of B 2B and B B geometry with notch locations as specified by CSA Z Table K.2. Specimens were tested at a temperature of -5ºC. Results of testing are summarized in the tables below: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

23 Weld Coupon E2H-A (ST/LI) Table 2 - CTOD Testing Results from E (Edmonton to Hardisty, 11.4mm w.t.) CSA Z662 Group Number 1 Notch Position Weld Centerline 2 HAZ 3 Weld Root 4 HAZ Highest Hardness Specimen CTOD in. (mm) Fracture Mode Crack Length Validity Notes.1 G (0.24) m Valid -.1 G (0.30) m Valid -.1 G (0.29) m Valid 1.1 G (0.46) m Valid 1,2.1 G (0.41) m Valid -.1 G (0.32) u Valid -.1 G (0.24) m Valid 3.1 G (0.21) m Valid 1,3.1 G (0.23) m Valid 3,4.1 G (0.41) m Valid 3,5.1 G (0.22) c Valid -.1 G (0.32) c/u Valid 6 Note 1: Specimens G1-4, G2-1, and G3-2 exhibited porosity within the test zone. The influence of porosity on the CTOD result was assessed and considered conservative or not significantly influential (SGS Ludwig Associates Engineering Ltd. Memo LEE14-106/E , 23-June-2014). Note 3: Specimen G2-1 exhibited a large pop-in after the maximum load plateau, at a CTOD value of 0.53mm. Note 3: Brittle facetted regions were observed in the ductile tear zones of Specimens G3-1, G3-2, G3-3, and G4-1. Note 4: Specimen G3-3: The load record exhibited a load anomaly (unload-reload cycle) after the maximum load plateau which was considered not influential. Note 5: Specimen G4-1 exhibited out-of-plane fracture (i.e. short transverse split) with associated pop-in (load drop) event at CTOD value of 0.14mm which was assessed as insignificant according to BS 7448 Part 2 Section Specifically, the pop-in exhibited a load drop of 0.9% and displacement increase of 0.7%, both less than the minimum value of 1% required to be considered significant. Note 6: Specimen G4-3 exhibited out-of-plane fracture (i.e. short transverse splits) with associated pop-in (load drop) events at and after maximum load, at CTOD values of 0.32mm (a) and 0.75mm (a). Measurement of a to determine c or u type was not possible. The CTOD result tabulated corresponds to the first pop-in event which occurred at max load. Assessment of the structural significance of the split is outside the scope of BS 7448 while CSA Z Annex K may not consider pop-ins associated with splits as a controlling event. However, as no subsequent higher load was achieved during the test, the first pop-in was determined to be the controlling event for CTOD determination. For Note 6: (a) Pop-in considered significant and critical (load drop and/or displacement increase > 1% and d n %F 1 > 5%). ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

24 Weld Coupon E2H-A (DT/LI) Table 3 - CTOD Testing Results E (Edmonton to Hardisty, 11.4mm w.t.) CSA Z662 Group Number 1 Notch Position Weld Centerline 2 HAZ 3 Weld Root 4 HAZ Highest Hardness Specimen CTOD in. (mm) Fracture Mode Crack Length Validity Notes.2 G (0.29) m Valid 1.2 G (0.37) m Valid 1,2.2 G (0.38) m Valid -.2 G (0.51) m Valid -.2 G (0.58) m Valid 2.2 G (0.51) m Valid -.2 G (0.27) m Valid -.2 G (0.26) m Valid 1.2 G (0.31) m Valid -.2 G (0.58) m Valid 2.2 G (0.43) m Valid -.2 G (0.63) m Valid - Note 1: Brittle facetted regions were observed in the ductile tear zones of Specimens G1-2, G1-3, and G3-2. Note 2: Specimens G1-3, G2-2, and G4-1 exhibited porosity within the test zone. The influence of porosity on the CTOD result was assessed and considered conservative or not significantly influential (SGS Ludwig Associates Engineering Ltd. Memo LEE14-106/E , 23-June-2014). ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

25 Weld Coupon E2H-A / E2H-A (Back Up) (DT/NI) Table 4 - CTOD Testing Results E (Edmonton to Hardisty, 11.4mm w.t.) CSA Z662 Group Number 1 Notch Position Weld Centerline 2 HAZ 3 Weld Root 4 HAZ Highest Hardness Specimen CTOD in. (mm) Fracture Mode Crack Length Validity Notes.4 G (0.41) m Valid -.4 G (0.37) m Valid 1.4 G (0.31) m Valid 2.4 G (0.56) m Valid 1.4 G (0.27) u Valid -.4 G (0.21) u Valid -.4 G (0.41) m Valid 1.4 G (0.44) m Valid -.4 G (0.41) m Valid 1.4 G (0.39) m Valid 3.4 G (0.50) m Valid 1.4 G (0.35) c/u Valid 4 Note 1: Specimens G1-2, G2-1, G3-1, G3-3, and G4-2 exhibited porosity within the test zone. The influence of porosity on the CTOD result was assessed and considered conservative or not significantly influential (SGS Ludwig Associates Engineering Ltd. Memo LEE14-106/E , 2-July-2014). Note 2: Note 3: Brittle facetted regions were observed in the ductile tear zone of Specimen G1-3. Specimen G4-1 exhibited out-of-plane fracture (i.e. short transverse split) with associated pop-in (load drop) event after the maximum load plateau, at a CTOD value of 0.76mm (a). Note 4: Specimen G4-3 exhibited out-of-plane fracture (i.e. short transverse split) with associated pop-in (load drop) events at and after maximum load, at CTOD values of 0.35mm (b), 0.41mm (c) and 0.56mm (c). Measurement of a to determine c or u type was not possible. The CTOD result tabulated corresponds to the first pop-in event which occurred at max load. Assessment of the structural significance of the split is outside the scope of BS 7448 while CSA Z Annex K may not consider pop-ins associated with splits as a controlling event. However, as no subsequent higher load was achieved during the test, the first pop-in was determined to be the controlling event for CTOD determination. For Notes 3 and 4: (a) Pop-in considered significant and critical (load drop and/or displacement increase > 1% and d n %F 1 > 5%). (b) Small pop-in of undetermined significance (load drop and/or displacement increase > 1%, d n %F 1 < 5%, Annex E pop-in assessment not conducted). (c) Small pop-in considered not significant (load drop and displacement increase < 1%). ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

26 APPENDIX A.2 CTOD Test Results Summary of Pipe Circumferential Welds (Edmonton to Hardisty, 10.9mm w.t.) (From SGS Ludwig Associates Ltd.) The following table identifies the coupon descriptions used for Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) testing: Table 5 Coupon Identification Weld ID No. Weld Description SGS Ludwig Test No. E2H-A (DT-NI) Dual Torch Nominal Interpass E CTOD testing was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in BS 7448 Part 2 and CSA Z Annex K. Testing was performed on specimens of B 2B and B B geometry with notch locations as specified by CSA Z Table K.2. Specimens were tested at a temperature of -5ºC. Note that testing was only conducted on Group 2 and Group 4 locations as a supplemental addition (non-code requirement, since wall thicknesses are within 10% of the base procedure of the fully qualified 11.4 mm w.t. material). Results of testing are summarized in the tables below: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

27 Weld Coupon E2H-A (DT-NI) Table 6 - CTOD Testing Results E (Edmonton to Hardisty, 10.9mm w.t.) CSA Z662 Group Number Notch Position 2 HAZ 4 HAZ Highest Hardness Specimen CTOD in. (mm) Fracture Mode Crack Length Validity Notes.5 G (0.097) c Valid 1.5 G (0.49) m Valid -.5 G (0.18) c Valid -.5 G (0.57) m Valid -.5 G (0.52) m Valid 3.5 G (0.45) m Valid 3 Note 1: Specimen G2-1: The reported CTOD value is based on a conservative (upper bound) yield strength value (111.9ksi at test temperature) estimated from upper bound weld zone hardness measurements. A less conservative CTOD value of 0.10mm would result from a yield strength value (82.4 ksi) estimated from average weld metal hardness. Note 2: Specimens G4-2 and G4-3 exhibited porosity within the test zone. The influence of porosity on the CTOD results was assessed and considered conservative ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

28 APPENDIX A.3 CTOD Test Results Summary of Pipe Circumferential Welds (Edmonton to Hardisty, 11.8mm w.t.) (From SGS Ludwig Associates Ltd.) The following table identifies the coupon descriptions used for Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) testing: Table 7 Coupon Identification Weld ID No. Weld Description SGS Ludwig Test No. E2H-A (DT-NI) Dual Torch Nominal Interpass E CTOD testing was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in BS 7448 Part 2 and CSA Z Annex K. Testing was performed on specimens of B 2B geometry with notch locations as specified by CSA Z Table K.2. Specimens were tested at a temperature of -5ºC. Note that testing was only conducted on Group 2 and Group 4 locations as a supplemental addition (non-code requirement, since wall thicknesses are within 10% of the base procedure of the fully qualified 11.4 mm w.t. material). Results of testing are summarized in the tables below: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

29 Weld Coupon E2H-A (DT-NI) Table 8 - CTOD Testing Results E (Edmonton to Hardisty, 11.8mm w.t.) CSA Z662 Group Number Notch Position 2 HAZ 4 HAZ Highest Hardness Specimen CTOD in. (mm) Fracture Mode Crack Length Validity Notes.6 G (0.73) m Valid -.6 G (0.62) m Valid -.6 G (0.65) m Valid -.6 G (0.34) m Valid 1,2.6 G (0.60) m Valid 1.6 G (0.45) m Valid 1,3 Note 1: Brittle facetted regions were observed in the ductile tear zones of Group 4 Specimens. Note 2: Specimen G4-1 exhibited a small pop-in at a CTOD valve of 0.061mm which was assessed as insignificant according to BS7448 Part 2 Section Specifically, the pop-in exhibited load drop and displacement increase both less than the minimum value of 1% required to be considered significant. Note 3: Specimen G4-3 exhibited a large pop-in after the maximum load plateau, at a CTOD value of 0.50mm. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

30 APPENDIX A.4 CTOD Test Results Summary of Pipe Circumferential Welds (Edmonton to Hardisty, 12.4mm w.t.) (From SGS Ludwig Associates Ltd.) The following table identifies the coupon descriptions used for Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) testing: Table 9 Coupon Identification Weld ID No. Weld Description SGS Ludwig Test No. E2H-A (DT-NI) Dual Torch Nominal Interpass E CTOD testing was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in BS 7448 Part 2 and CSA Z Annex K. Testing was performed on specimens of B 2B geometry with notch locations as specified by CSA Z Table K.2. Specimens were tested at a temperature of -5ºC. Note that testing was only conducted on Group 2 and Group 4 locations as a supplemental addition (non-code requirement, since wall thicknesses are within 10% of the base procedure of the fully qualified 11.4 mm w.t. material). Results of testing are summarized in the tables below: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

31 Weld Coupon E2H-A (DT-NI) Table 10 - CTOD Testing Results E (Edmonton to Hardisty, 12.4mm w.t.) CSA Z662 Group Number Notch Position 2 HAZ 4 HAZ Highest Hardness Specimen CTOD in. (mm) Fracture Mode Crack Length Validity Notes.7 G (0.50) m Valid -.7 G (0.43) m Valid 1,2.7 G (0.40) m Valid -.7 G (0.49) m Valid -.7 G (0.49) m Valid -.7 G (0.59) m Valid 2 Note 1: Specimen G2-2 exhibited a critical pop-in after the maximum load plateau, at a CTOD value of 0.77mm. Note 2: Specimens G2-2 and G4-3 exhibited porosity within the test zone. The influence of porosity on the CTOD results was assessed and considered conservative or not significantly influential (SGS Ludwig Associates Engineering Ltd. Memo LEE14-106/E , 7-July-2014). ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

32 APPENDIX B CH2MHill Stress Summary ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

33 July CH2M HILL Project No Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project Pipe Stress Results Input for CSA Z662 Annex K Assessment (Design Pressure Case, P= 9928 kpa, 10380kPa, T=38 degc) Values Hoop Stress (Sh) (MPa) Axial Pressure Stress (Sa) (MPa) Principal Stress (MPa) Max of Longitudinal Bending Stress (SLb) (MPa) Max of Tensile Bending Stress (Mpa) Wall Thickness (mm) Design Pressure (kpa) Notes: 1. Hoop stress (Sh) = P*D / 2*tn per Z662 Section (directly from AutoPIPE) 2. Axial Pressure Stress (Sa) = 0.3 * Sh per Z662 Section Principal Stress is the combination of hoop stress, axial stress and shear stress (directly from AutoPIPE) 4. Longitudinal Bending Stress (SLb) = Max Longitudinal Stress (from AutoPIPE) Axial Pressure Stress (Sa) 5. Maximum Tensile Bending Stress = (Sa * 1.5) + Max Longitudinal Bending Stress mm wall thickness is for the induction bend wall thickness, starting from 15.9mm C:\Users\akurtis\Projects\Enbridge Pipeline \IFC\[TensileBendingStress_TJD_ xlsx]Operation Pivot Table

34 CH2M HILL Project No Edmonton to Hardisty Pipeline Project Pipe Stress Results Input for CSA Z662 Annex K Assessment (Lowering In Case) Values Node Hoop Stress (Sh) (MPa) Longitudinal Bending Stress (SLb) (MPa) Max of Principal Stress (Mpa) Max of Tensile Bending Stress (Mpa) A A A A A A A A A A A B Notes: 1. Hoop stress (Sh) = P*D / 2*tn per Z662 Section (directly from AutoPIPE) 2. Axial Pressure Stress (Sa) = 0.3 * Sh per Z662 Section Principal Stress is the combination of hoop stress, axial stress and shear stress (directly from AutoPIPE) 4. Longitudinal Bending Stress (SLb) = Max Longitudinal Stress (from AutoPIPE) Axial Pressure Stress (Sa) 5. Maximum Tensile Bending Stress = (Sa * 1.5) + Max Longitudinal Bending Stress

35 APPENDIX C Flaw Interaction Criteria for CSA Z662 Annex K ECA ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

36 APPENDIX C: Flaw Interaction Criteria for CSA Z662 Annex K ECA (E2H Pipeline Project) 1 Overview Flaws that do not meet the criteria for circumferential interaction (i.e. CSA Z662, Clause K.7.2) are to be treated as non-interacting and can therefore be treated independently. Flaws that meet the criteria for circumferential interaction are to be further assessed for coplanar interaction, vertical interaction and bulk plastic collapse. The vertical interaction and plastic collapse assessments only apply to coplanar flaws. The plastic collapse assessment is necessary for circumferentially interacting coplanar flaws regardless of vertical interaction. For liquid service, and before any additional restrictions governed by the prevailing failure criteria (i.e. brittle fracture and plastic collapse), the maximum permissible flaw height is 25%w.t. and the maximum permissible flaw length is 10% pipe circumference. This applies to discrete flaws as well as groups of flaws categorized as interacting, which are assessed on the basis of an effective flaw size. 2 Coplanar Flaw Definition Coplanar flaws are combinations of discrete flaws that are close enough in axial proximity (i.e. in the pipeline longitudinal direction) to be considered in the same plane of loading in the through wall direction. The criteria chosen for coplanar interaction comes from API 1104 Appendix A as it specifically considers the axial distance spacing for coplanar interaction. Flaws existing along the weld bevel profiles are considered coplanar when the shortest axial distance between them is less than the height of the smaller of the flaws in question. For the weld profile under consideration, the following combinations of flaws are to be categorized as coplanar: Either root bevel flaw with LCP Either root bevel flaw (with or without LCP) to either HP bevel flaw LCP with either HP bevel flaw One side HP flaw in combination with a fill and/or cap flaw on the same side of the weld. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

37 I.E. A fill flaw on one side of the weld is not coplanar with a hot pass flaw on the other side of the weld. Combinations of fill/cap bevel flaws on the same side of the weld. I.E. The occurrence of a fill flaw on both sides of the weld is not to be treated as a coplanar flaw. 3 Circumferential Interaction Rule Flaws that are considered to circumferentially interact per Annex K: Imperfections shall be considered to interact if the distance between their indications is less than the length of the smaller indication. For such imperfections, the effective length shall be the sum of the dimensions of the two indications plus the distance between them. 4 Vertical Interaction Rules: Vertical interaction rules follow the guidelines of PD 6493:1991. The assessment for vertical interaction applies to coplanar flaws that are considered to be circumferentially interacting. Flaws are considered to interact vertically if the vertical space between adjacent flaws is smaller than the vertical height of the smaller of the AUT flaw zones under consideration. The effective dimensions of vertically interacting flaws is to assume the entire vertical dimension spanning the top of the upper flaw to the bottom of the lower flaw and likewise the circumferential length spans the full length from tip to tip of the flaws under consideration. This method of oversizing is intended to be conservative for assessments including brittle fracture control and fatigue control. 5 Plastic Collapse Aggregate Flaw Size Limit Combinations of circumferentially interacting coplanar flaws, that either vertically interact or not, must be limited such that the aggregate flaw area does not exceed plastic collapse limits. This criterion must be exercised to avoid full section yielding beyond the upper limits imposed ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

38 by Annex K. This plastic collapse limit is quite generous for typical stress level ECAs (such as 80% SMYS and lower). However, it becomes rather restrictive for high stress ECAs (i.e. 90% and higher) where the ECA is typically limited by plastic collapse control. For purposes of practicality, if the nominal plastic collapse limit is well beyond the bounds of the statutory flaw limits, it is not necessary to exercise this criterion. Considering that this criterion is discretionary (beyond consideration and requirements of industry-standard fracture mechanics codes), and conservatively evaluated (both in the calculated plastic collapse limit and inherent oversizing of flaw heights) SGS Ludwig proposes a threshold condition upon which to trigger such evaluation. Specifically, when an ECA predicts plastic collapse failure for a maximum statutory length flaw at a height less than 125% of the statutory flaw height limit (Dstat), it is considered prudent to exercise this additional plastic collapse assessment criterion. For this plastic collapse assessment, it is not necessary to adopt the effective flaw size methodology as defined previously (i.e. excessive conservatism for plastic collapse considerations). Instead, regardless of the number of AUT flaws under consideration, the maximum aggregate flaw area (by summation of individual flaws) is appropriate. Therefore within any 10% weld circumference interval, a maximum total flaw area can be defined. More practically, the maximum cumulative flaw area can be conservatively translated to a maximum aggregate flaw length, requiring individual length sizing of each flaw within each AUT zone. Based on the weld profile design and zonal methodology for flaw positioning and sizing, it is considered conservative (and may be considered practical) to assume a common flaw height equal to the largest AUT zone to identify the permissible combined flaw length limit. The following illustration purposes to clarify the measurement method for this plastic collapse criterion: ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1

39 Illustration of Individual and Aggregate Flaw Plastic Collapse Length Assessment for Vertically Separated Coplanar Flaws For the E2H project this approach yields the following aggregate flaw length limits for circumferentially interacting and coplanar flaws within any 200mm circumferential weld segment: E2H Plastic Collapse Limit for Multiple Flaws within 280mm length of weld circumference) Wall Thickness Max Aggregate Length Not limited Not limited ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. File No. LEE ECA 1