Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IOPF 2010
October 20-21, 2010, Houston, Texas, USA
IOPF2010-7001
PIPELINE INTOLERANCE TO PIGGING
Leo Aldeen (PhD)
INTECSEA INC.
Houston, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT
Pipelines are built to specific tolerances, including those for
nominal size, wall thickness, weld penetration, ovality,
corrosion allowance, bend radii, etc. Pipelines are designed
to operate efficiently, but in order to do so they need to be
properly maintained, which signifies the importance of
pigging. However, consideration is not always given during
the design process to the need for pigging and the constraints
that the design will impose on those pigs. If a pipeline is not
properly designed from the pigging perspective, maintenance
can become difficult, a costly burden and may be even risky.
Pigs can only operate efficiently within a narrow band of
pipeline internal conditions, regardless of whether they are
for
commissioning,
maintenance
or
intervention.
Dimensional tolerance, pipeline geometry and the internal
bore directly impact the following activities:
Pig selection
Internal gauging
Commissioning
Routine pigging
Inline inspection
Maintenance and repair
NOMENCLATURE
ID - Internal Diameter
OD - Outside Diameter
MFL Magnetic Flux Leakage
SCR Steel Catenary Riser
PLET Pipeline End Termination
PIPELINE SIZE AND TOLERANCES
Pipelines are designed and built to stringent engineering
standards, where all applicable codes and regulations are
strictly followed. The design specifically addresses the
strength the pipeline has to have in order to handle the stresses
and workloads imposed upon it. These include the operating
conditions, environmental factors, and durability over its
required life-span. The diameter of the pipeline is primarily
determined by the flow rates that it has to handle and the
feasibility of its offshore installation. Account is rarely taken
of the impact the design will have on pigging. In this respect,
most design constraints are cost driven. For example, wall
thickness is added to the ID of a pipeline rather than to the OD,
as it makes it easier and a lot less expensive for offshore
installation.
Substantial cost savings are made when smaller lateral
pipelines are tied into a larger one for transporting all of the
Flow
CONCLUSION
To pig or not to pig is no longer a question; it is essential
for maintaining the efficiency and integrity of a pipeline. Even
if a pipeline does not necessarily need to be pigged, in time it
will have to be inspected to ensure that it is defect free and its
corrosion treatment strategy is effective. Pigging always
carries a certain degree of risk and doing so without due
diligence is probably a great deal more risky than not pigging
at all. The golden rule in pigging is what goes in must come
out. The proviso here is that no pig should be deployed unless
it will effectively perform a given function.
There is a plethora of information in the industry, but
unfortunately this knowledge is not widely shared and the
industry should rectify this deficiency. The aim of this paper is
to improve the specifications for pipeline pigging, as well as
help advance pigging technology.
The improvements are necessary to establish a set of
practical engineering principles for achieving the following:
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4"
6"
12"
16"
24"
28"
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my wife, Dr. Susan Aldeen, for her
support and assistance throughout the preparation of this paper.
I would also like to express my thanks to INTECSEA Inc for
affording me the opportunity to present this paper to the IOPF.
My appreciation also goes to Dr. Dave Agerton for his
encouragement.
Diameter (inches)
REFERENCES
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems
ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.8