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 regulations 1,2 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 180 O 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. Manufacturer’s
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 tool’s 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.