DETERMINING PIGGABILITY OF PIPELINES FOR IN-LINE TOOL

Recent regulations1,2 have required that pipeline operators

develop and implement pipeline integrity management programs. Since
it does not usually require pipelines to be taken out of service, in-
line inspection is often the preferred method of integrity assessment
when it is practical to do so. Due to certain in-line inspection tool
restrictions, it is sometimes necessary to make modifications to a
pipeline in order to make it piggable for in-line inspection purposes.
A thorough examination of the mechanical and operational
characteristics of the pipeline to be inspected must be conducted in
order to determine the feasibility of in-line inspection and to select
the optimum tool.

Keywords: in-line inspection, piggability, pigging, pipelines,

pipeline integrity assessment, launcher, receiver, smart pigs

INTRODUCTION

Recent US Department of Transportation regulations1,2 require that

pipeline operators develop and implement pipeline integrity management
programs for pipelines operating in high consequence areas. Direct
assessment, hydrostatic testing and
in-line inspection are the three basic methods available for operators
to use for assessing the integrity of their pipelines.

Direct assessment consists of direct examinations at pre-

determined locations on a pipeline where potential external corrosion,
internal corrosion or stress corrosion cracking are most likely to
exist. The direct examination locations are chosen on the basis of
indirect inspection surveys or by modeling. Direct assessment would
usually be used only if in-line inspection or hydrostatic testing are
not feasible options. Additionally, direct assessment is not
currently accepted by DOT for liquid pipelines without a waiver.

Hydrostatic testing has the major disadvantage of requiring that

a pipeline be out of service for extended periods of time, and is
considered a destructive test, since location of a defect requires
that the pipeline experience a leak or rupture during testing.
Disposal of hydrostatic test water can also be difficult and expensive
due to environmental considerations.

Since in-line inspection does not usually require a pipeline to

be taken out of service, and gives accurate location of defects
nondestructively, it is often the preferred method of integrity
assessment. However, not all pipelines were designed with in-line
inspection in mind. Pig launchers and receivers may be inadequate or
may not exist at all. Diameter restrictions, sharp bends or other
physical features may exist which would damage an inspection tool or
cause it to become lodged in the pipeline. Prior to in-line
inspection, a detailed examination of the physical and operational
aspects of a pipeline to be inspected is necessary to ensure that in-
line inspection is feasible. In some cases, minor adjustments can be
made to the inspection tool with no pipeline modifications required to
facilitate inspection. In others cases, it may prove that in-line
inspection is not practical because of the major expenses required to
make a pipeline piggable. Inspection tools may also have other
restrictions, such as pressure, temperature and compatibility with the
product.

Pipeline operators should complete a questionnaire which

evaluates all physical and operational aspects of a pipeline to assist
in determination of pipeline Piggability and to help choose the
appropriate in-line inspection tool.3

PHYSICAL RESTRICTIONS

Depending on the in-line inspection vendor and the specific tool

selected, the physical restrictions for the tool will vary.
Specification sheets for each specific tool will usually identify the
restrictions and provide maximum and minimum values for the pertinent
parameters. The following are the main items which need to be
considered.

Launchers and Receivers

In-line inspection tool specification sheets will usually give

minimum length requirements for the nominal and oversize portions of
the launchers and receivers for each type and size of inspection tool.
If reliable drawings of existing launchers and receivers are not
available, it will be necessary to field verify the dimensions. The
tool vendor will usually provide access area requirements for the
launcher and receiver areas which will need to be checked for
adequacy. If launchers and receivers do not exist, the pipeline will
either need to be modified by installing permanent launchers and
receivers or temporary ones will need to be used during the
inspection.

The oversize portion of a launcher should be at least as long as

the inspection tool. This allows the front (drive) cups of the
inspection pig to seal in the nominal pipe a very short distance
downstream of the reducer while allowing the trap to be closed. If
the oversize portion is too short, it may be difficult to push some
articulated pigs far enough into the nominal size pipe to allow
closing the launcher. Additionally, even if it is possible to push
the tool further past the reducer, the launcher isolation valve may be
too close to allow the pig to be fully inserted into the launcher.
The nominal size portion of the launcher needs to be long enough to
allow the drive cups of the inspection tool to seal without the front
of the pig contacting the launcher isolation valve. An equalizing
line should also be present which facilitates pressure equalization on
both sides of the pig with the pressure downstream of the launcher
isolation valve prior to opening the valve. This prevents the pig
from being pushed backward and losing its seal when the isolation
valve is opened.

The nominal portion of a receiver should be at least as long as

the inspection tool. This ensures that once the drive cups of a pig
pass the reducer and lose their seal, the trailing end of the pig is
clear of the receiver isolation valve. Otherwise the pig may stop
prior to completely clearing the valve. If this happens, depending on
the product and flow rates available, it may not be possible to move
the pig far enough forward to permit closing the isolation valve. The
length of the oversize portion of the trap is not as important for
receivers as it is for launchers since it is much easier to pull an
articulated pig through the nominal size pipe than to push one in.
The oversize portion should be long enough to accommodate the stopping
position of the pig without contacting the closure door.
Bends

The minimum negotiable bend radius is an important restriction to

be considered. Most in-line inspection tools are designed to
negotiate factory bends with a radius of 3-D (3 times pipe diameter)
or greater. Certain tools are even capable of negotiating a 180O 1-D
radius bend. Some tools however, depending on pipe diameter require a
minimum bend radius as high as 9D. Additionally, the in-line
inspection vendor will usually specify a minimum bore at bends which
is more restrictive than their specified minimum bore for the line
pipe.

Internal Coating

Internal coating will interfere with data collection for some in-
line inspection tools. Additionally, some tools may damage internal
coatings, which would not be an acceptable situation to the pipeline
operator. The tool vendor should be made aware of the specification of
any internal coating which may be present in the pipeline and should
advise the pipeline operator of any compatibility problems.

Wall Thickness

In-line tools have a range of pipe wall thicknesses which they

are capable of inspecting for metal loss with the desired accuracy.
The lower wall thickness limit needs to be considered, but is usually
not an issue. Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) tools report metal loss as
percent of pipe wall and have an upper wall thickness limit of
anywhere from 0.375 to over 1.00 depending on the specific tool and
vendor. Ultrasonic tools measure and report actual remaining wall and
generally have a higher upper limit than MFL tools. Some ultrasonic
tools do not even specify a maximum wall thickness. Prior to
inspection, wall thicknesses of the line pipe throughout the length of
the pipeline will need to be determined to be sure the appropriate
inspection tool is chosen.

Pipe Inside Diameter (Bore)

The outside diameter of line pipe for any given nominal pipe size
is constant. Therefore the mismatch at the transition between
different wall thicknesses will always be on the inside of the pipe.
Inspection tool vendors will usually specify a maximum and minimum
continuous allowable bore, and a maximum allowable step at transitions
for each nominal pipe size for each specific tool. If the maximum
allowable step is exceeded, the tool can be damaged or stuck. If wall
thickness differences are too great, multiple inspection runs with
different tool configurations may be required to complete the
inspection of a pipeline segment.

Mainline Valves

The manufacturers and bores of mainline valves in the pipeline to

be inspected need to be determined. Some older pipelines will
actually have mainline valves of a smaller nominal size than the
pipeline itself. For example, there are 24 pipelines in existence
which have 20 mainline valves. In these cases, in-line inspection
would require replacement of the valves or the use of temporary
launchers and receivers in each valve section.

Even if valves are the same nominal size as the pipeline, they
still may have a smaller bore than the line pipe. In-line inspection
vendors will usually specify the minimum bore for ball valves and gate
valves through which their tool can pass without damage. This minimum
local bore restriction will be somewhat smaller than the minimum
continuous bore. Some gate valves will have a void equal to thickness
of the gate when in the fully open position. If the drive cups of the
inspection tool lose their seal at this cavity, the tool may stop at
the valve and the available flow may not be enough to move it any
further. It might also be possible for the front cup to nose down and
lodge in the void. In either case it would be necessary to shut down
the pipeline and remove the pig by cutting it out. This problem can
be avoided by adding an extension on the front of the pig with an
additional drive cup. The two drive cups should be spaced so that at
least one cup is sealed at all times when passing the cavity in the
valve.

Operating procedures should also specify physically checking all

the mainline valves to be sure they are fully open prior to any pig
runs to avoid pig or valve damage.

Check Valves

Check valves are also a potential problem for in-line inspection.

If check valves are present in the pipeline, the inspection vendor
will sometimes require that the clappers either be removed or locked
in the open position to avoid damaging the tool. Check valves will
also have a void which will need to be spanned by the drive cups at
all times while passing. The void can be compensated for in the same
manner as for the gate valves. Manufacturers drawings for each
different check valve should be carefully reviewed.

Barred Tees
 Full size branch connections (tees) in the pipeline should be
barred to prevent the front of the inspection pig from becoming
lodged. Unbarred tees may be found in some older pipelines, even at
the receivers. It is usually not necessary to replace these with
barred tees to accommodate in-line inspection, but extreme caution
should be exercised while running in-line inspection tools or any
other type of pig with unbarred tees in the pipeline. It is important
that the pig not be allowed to stop at an unbarred tee, especially if
there is any flow going from the mainline through the tee, such as at
a receiver.

Intrusive Devices

The pipeline should be checked for any installed facilities which

may protrude into the pipeline and interfere with pigging. Intrusive
devices such as insertion flow meters, internal corrosion monitoring
devices and siphon drains are some examples of facilities which would
need to be removed prior to pigging.

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Tool Speed

Tool speed is an important consideration when the inspection is

planned to be run with product on-stream. If speed requirements
cannot be met during normal operations, it will not be feasible to
perform an inspection without taking a pipeline out of service. All
inspection tools have an optimum velocity range in which they can
collect usable data. Most free swimming tools are run in the range of
1 to 7 miles per hour, whereas tethered UT tools are run at much lower
velocities of about 0.2 to 0.4 miles per hour. For on-stream
inspections, product flow must be maintained within the desired range.
This can result in lost throughput (and lost revenue) for pipelines
which usually operate at higher velocities.

Product Compatibility

Products may contain corrosive compounds such as hydrogen sulfide

which would result in damage to inspection tools unless they are
specially modified. The tool vendor may even need to build a custom
made tool out of special materials to accommodate corrosive products.
Liquid or supercritical carbon dioxide pipelines present special
problems for in-line inspection. These pipelines usually operate at
pressures higher than most tools can accommodate, and the carbon
dioxide exists in a supercritical phase where it behaves more like a
liquid than a gas. Supercritical carbon dioxide permeates all of the
elastomers present in the pig such as the cups and the wiring and
causes them to deteriorate rapidly. The combination of the permeation
and the extremely dry environment existing in carbon dioxide pipelines
also causes rapid cup wear.

Most ultrasonic in-line inspection tools require a liquid

couplant between the sensors and the pipe wall to function. These
tools are therefore more suitable for liquid lines than for gas. In
order for ultrasonic tools to be run on-stream in gas lines, they must
be run in a slug of liquid between two other pigs to provide the
couplant.

Temperature Limitations

In-line inspection tools will have specific temperature ranges in

which they can function properly. If pipelines operate outside of the
acceptable temperature range, they cannot be inspected while in
service.

Pressure Limitations

All tools have a maximum pressure limitation. When run in gas

lines, tools will also have a minimum pressure limit. The minimum
required gas pressure is highest for small diameter pipelines. For
instance in 4 pipelines, one vendor requires a minimum of 1000 Psig.
At lower pressures, pigs will not run smoothly but will start and
stop, even in continuous bore pipe. Pigs will also tend to stop at
restrictions such as transitions to heavy wall pipe or reduced bore
valves for long periods of time. While stopped, pressure builds
behind the pig until it breaks loose and surges forward at a high rate
of speed, likely outside of the desired velocity range. When this
happens, insufficient data is collected for this portion of the run.
Surging such as this also increases the chances of the tool being
damaged. At higher pressures, the gas acts more like a non-
compressible liquid and reduces or eliminates the surging effect.

FINAL PREPARATION

Pipeline Cleaning

Pipelines should be as clean as possible prior to inspections.

Solids present on the internal pipe walls will interfere with data
collection and may even cause the inspection tool to become lodged in
the pipeline. The pigging history of the pipeline should be reviewed
to determine what type of cleaning program may be required. Multiple
runs with steel brush cleaning pigs are sometimes necessary to achieve
an acceptable cleanliness level for in-line inspection.
Gauging

Once all known physical piggability issues have been resolved, as

a minimum, a gauging pig should be run to determine if there any
unknown restrictions such as dents, buckles or ovalities in the
pipeline. The gauging plate should be made of aluminum and should be
of a diameter large enough to detect any internal diameter
restrictions which are outside of the in-line inspection tools stated
minimum bore requirements. Of course, the gauging pig will not
provide the location of any restrictions which may have damaged the
gauging plate during the run.

If the gauging plate is damaged, it will be necessary to run a

geometry tool to locate the restriction causing the damage so it can
be removed. Geometry tools are very forgiving and are designed to
pass through restrictions of 25% or more of the pipe diameter.
Running of a geometry tool also has the added benefit of verification
of all other information regarding bends and inside diameter issues.
Some in-line inspection vendors will also provide a dummy tool which
will have weights and dimensions similar to the actual inspection
tool. It may be required by the tool vendor that a successful dummy
run be executed prior to the actual inspection run.

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential that piggability of a pipeline be ensured prior

to in-line inspection. The operator should develop a check list
considering of all the items discussed in the previous sections. As a
minimum, a gauging and/or geometry tool should be successfully run as
a final check prior to the actual inspection.

Insufficient research and preparation prior to in-line inspection

can result in inspection tools being damaged or destroyed, and may
result in the necessity of an expensive pipeline shutdown to recover
the tool. Furthermore, the inspection may provide little or no
useable data about the condition of the pipeline. In either case, a
considerable expense will be incurred by the operator with very little
benefit to show for it. The cost of modifications required to make
in-line inspection possible should also be weighed against the cost of
direct assessment or hydrostatic testing for integrity assessment.

REFERENCES

1. US Department of Transportation 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation

Of Natural And Other Gas By Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety
 Standards, Subpart O, Pipeline Integrity Management in High
Consequence Areas.

2. US Department of Transportation 49 CFR Part 195, Transportation

of Hazardous Liquids By Pipeline, Subpart F, Paragraph 195.452,
Pipeline Integrity Management In High Consequence Areas.

3. NACE Standard RP0102-2002, Standard Recommended Practice, Inline

Inspection of Pipelines, Appendix A.