Proceedings of the 5th International Offshore Pipeline Forum

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

Risks arise when the internal condition of the pipeline is

unknown. This paper deals with these issues. It highlights
the importance of considering pigging during pipeline design
and the need for tighter construction specifications.
INTRODUCTION
Pigs are not good at multi-tasking. They can only perform
efficiently one task at a time, be it cleaning, dewatering, or
inspection. Their optimal performance can only be realized in
a narrow band of operational conditions. These conditions are
related to the internal bore of the pipeline and the geometry of
its components. The most important of these are the design
tolerances that significantly impact the size of the internal bore.

When design, construction, and installation tolerances are

all combined, they tend to make pigging more difficult. The
probability of being able to use off-the-shelf pigs is
substantially reduced and specially designed pigs become a
necessity. Although pig development and testing can be very
costly, it is justifiable when compared with the high cost of
maintaining a constant pipeline internal diameter (ID). The
need for pig testing cannot be over emphasized, since the
implications of having to deal with a subsea blockage can be
extremely costly. Making the pipeline problem-free for pigging
should therefore be actively attempted during the design stage.

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

Copyright 2009 by ASME

streams to a central location. This arrangement, although

attractive from a cost point of view, can be extremely difficult
to pig, subject to the geometry and configuration of the entire
system.
PIPELINE FEATURES
Extra wall thickness is added to the ID to account for
corrosion and other design factors. This restricts the bore and
makes pigging more difficult. The combination of pig trap
design deficiencies, bends and riser makes it hard for the pig to
be launched and travel steadily through the topsides.
The use of small radius bends is invariably dictated by
space and weight limitations on offshore facilities, even though
such bends are difficult to traverse. In addition, the installation
difficulties of S-lay and J-lay vessels govern the weight and
size of PLETs and their associated bends.
One extremely important issue about bends that gets
overlooked is the reduction of the radius. This has wide ranging
consequences. The first of these is that they require the pig to
be short to prevent excessive deformation and allow the pig to
traverse the bend with minimal bypass. Secondly, flow bypass
cannot be completely avoided since the centerline of the pig
will be offset from the centerline of the bend. The implication
of this is that the longer the pig, the more the discs will be
deformed. It can be seen from Figure 1 that as the cross section
of the bend is displaced from the turning axis, the driving discs
of the pig will engage an elliptical bore rather than a circular
one. The longer the pig, the greater the major axis of the ellipse
becomes. The minor axis of the ellipse, which is the diameter
of the bore, remains constant.

Figure 1: Illustration of Pig Traversing Bend

The presence of a longitudinal weld in the mother pipe will

further reduce the sealing capability of the pig. On the other
hand, using seamless pipe for the bend does not necessarily
make it easier to pig, since the ID could be worse due to the
wide dimensional tolerances of seamless pipe.

If the pipeline includes a wye, then the pig has to be long

enough to span the crotch opening of the wye, otherwise it will
stall (see Figure 2).

Flow

Figure 2: Short Pig Stalling In Crotch of Wye

The additional length hinders the pigs ability to pass

through tight bends. When a pipeline includes a wye, the bend
radius should be 5D bend, or more. This is governed by the
diameter change ratio of the entire system. It is worth noting
that extensive pig testing has shown that the use of a 5D radius
for all bends does not circumvent the difficulty of pigging. The
ideal is that the bends of the largest pipe should have a
minimum radius of 5D and the smallest pipe bends should have
an equivalent radius that matches the 5D of the largest pipe.
There is a tendency to shorten the length of a pig, which
unwittingly makes the pig unstable. Here, the driving force is
on the back of the pig creating a moment, which forces the
front disc to dig into the bottom of the pipe.
Forged tees tend to have a diameter that is smaller than the
mating pipe. This makes it harder for the pig to pass, as the
bore bulges inwards in the vicinity of the opening. Forged tees
should therefore be profiled to render a smooth internal surface
and any opening that has a cross sectional area of 20% or more
of that of the pipeline has to be fitted with bars to prevent the
pig getting stuck.
Pig traps should always be appropriately sized to
accommodate the largest pig. Pig traps that have a diameter
smaller than the pig make pig loading difficult, and may even
prevent the pig from launching. A small pig trap will have to
be equipped with a launching cassette. This will complicate the
launching process and it will increase frictional resistance
against the pig during launch. In addition, the pig will have to
be pulled into the cassette with a winch without being
damaged.
If a pig trap includes a dished reducer then this may also
prevent the pig from launching. A tapered reducer should be
used in pig traps to facilitate pig launch. As far as pipeline
reducers are concerned, a standard ratio of 1:4 is preferred for
routine pigging. However, a ratio of 1:8 is normally preferred
for MFL tools to ensure that the magnetic sensors maintain
contact with the pipeline surface during high speed excursions.
This applies to both concentric and eccentric reducers.
In the event that a pipeline is multi-diameter, concentric
reducers are preferred. These pipelines cannot be served by
conventional pigs and will require ones that are specially

Copyright 2009 by ASME

designed. The ratio of change in diameter will dictate the

design and type of pig that can be used for a particular
function.
Pig manufacturers prefer to produce standard pigs because
they are not as difficult to manufacture and where decades of
experience has been gained with such pigs. The industry has
limited experience with designing pigs for multi-diameter
pipelines.
Multi-diameter systems have only been built in the last 25
years, or so. For this reason, there is limited knowledge of
pigging such pipelines, so many are not regularly pigged.
Newly installed pipelines that have been designed for pigging
are routinely pigged and successfully inspected.
There are mainly two strategies for pigging multi-diameter
pipelines. The first and less onerous, is for the pig to perform
its duty in the smaller diameter section only and just travel with
the flow in the larger sections. In the second scenario, the pig
needs to perform its duty in all diameters, which is why it is a
much more demanding requirement. With present technology,
pigging both diameters is less efficient or may not even be
possible if the ratio of diameters is 1.2 or larger.
Foam pigs are frequently used for less demanding
applications, since they cost less and are believed to be more
forgiving of diameter changes. However, these pigs can be
unpredictable since foam consistency can be difficult to
maintain and the quality of manufacture cannot be readily
established.
Multi-diameter pigs have inherent bypass across them. As
the diameter change ratio increases, the higher bypass
adversely affects their ability to travel due to a loss of seal. The
larger sealing discs are less effective at supporting the pig,
since its weight causes the discs to collapse. To counteract this,
the use of wheel supports becomes a necessity to centralize the
pig inside the pipeline. Two types are used, the most common
of which are where each wheel mechanism is independently
spring-energized. This type is widely used for inspection pigs.
The more effective support system adopts an interlinked
mechanism, where all wheels act in unison. Several types of
wheel supports have been successfully tested and some of these
have long been used for routine maintenance pigs.
For less demanding applications and when the multidiameter pipeline geometry permits, it is known that two
differently sized pigs are used in the system. A smaller pig is
launched first and is then recovered by a larger pig. This
practice has been shown during pig testing to be problematic
and therefore should not be attempted when there is large
difference in the diameter of the pipelines, and especially when
there is a wye in the system.
PIPELINE INTERNAL CONDITIONS
The mechanics of pigging are not well understood and
there are ideas that are not based on scientific evidence. For
example, API RP 1110, Section 6.2 suggests a minimum
pigging speed during line filling and cleaning of 2 to 3 mph to
reduce the risk of the introduction or air or another

compressible mixture behind the fill pigs, thus making a quality

test difficult. The suggested speed of 23 mph appears to be
arbitrary since it does not take account of pipeline diameter,
internal condition, water depth, or type of pig.
Insufficient flow rates make it hard for a multi-diameter
pig to travel through the pipeline, unless the driving discs of
the pig are very flexible. However, this makes the pig less
efficient at sealing and scraping due to the lack of stiffness and
excessive deformation of the discs. For example, with a
pigging speed of 0.5 ft/s, a slightly protruding girth weld may
cause the pig to hang up, while at a speed of 3 4 ft/s, the pig
can pass a larger obstruction unhindered.
Excessive flow creates other complications for pigging.
Hydroplaning is a problem associated with high speed, where a
dewatering pig slides over a layer of water, so does not displace
it. This leads to a need to use more then one pig to achieve the
required level of dryness. High speed pigging causes more
wear on the discs as the polyurethane of the discs has low
thermal conductivity.
The greater the surface roughness of the pipeline, the more
wear the pig will incur. This will reduce the durability of the
pig and limit the distance over which the pig will be effective.
Excessive wear may cause the pig to lose seal which may then
stop if the flow is insufficient to keep it entrained. In addition,
incorrect shore hardness or excessive porosity of the discs will
severely degrade pig performance.
Elevated temperatures soften the discs and reduce the pigs
sealing and scraping efficiency. Chemical compatibility of the
polyurethane is also important when having to pig in the
presence of high concentrations of chemical additives as well
as corrosion and wax inhibitors.
The internal condition of the pipeline, even when the pig is
correctly selected, can create havoc during pigging. This is due
to construction debris which can amount to several tons and if
not removed, over time can combine with scale, sand and wax
leading to extremely difficult conditions for pigging. These
conditions alter what would have been a simple pigging
exercise into one that is extremely expensive and difficult.
Debris makes it difficult to pig a pipeline and the need for
bypass ports is necessary to prevent its compaction. These
ports are fitted in the pig and flow bypass allows the debris to
be entrained ahead of the pig. The concept of using bypass
ports is not a panacea that will serve all pipeline conditions and
debris. Not all pigs can include bypass ports and still function
effectively. Not all debris can be swept away with polyurethane
discs without the need for scraping and brush pigging. The type
of brushes to be used will also depend on the condition of the
pipeline and whether it is internally coated. In the latter case,
non-metallic brushes are a must. Foam pigs are generally not
durable or efficient at removing debris, but this depends on the
size, length and condition of the pipeline.
All of the above add to the complexity of determining the
right pigging strategy and selecting pigs that are appropriate for
the intended duty.

Copyright 2009 by ASME

PIG SELECTION AND DESIGN

Not every pipeline engineer needs to be an expert on pigs
and pigging. However, an appreciation of what pigs can and
cannot do may be considered essential for the design of
pipelines so they can be safely operated and properly
maintained. When quality of performance is the requirement
better pigs are needed.
It needs to be recognized that the outward appearance of a
pig may be impressive, but it does not imply that it will
perform well. A pig has several underlining properties that
cannot be readily discerned. The pig may be recovered from
the pipeline intact, leading to a false interpretation, only to
discover later that the end result was in fact unsatisfactory.
Pig selection should be based on verifiable properties. For
multi-diameter pipelines, it is imperative that only pigs that
have been approved through testing should be introduced into
the system.
PIGGING STANDARDS AND TOLERANCES
Certain operators have established de facto standards for
their own pipeline pigging and maintenance that they have
found applicable to their pipeline system and they keep good
discipline in using these standards. This is not a bad thing, as
more often than not, every pipeline has its own operating
conditions and limitations, so the one size fits all idea is not
applicable. The drawback to this is that the operational
knowledge is not shared, not even within the same
organization.
As far as specifications for pigging are concerned, they are
either non-existent or inadequate. In addition, the specification
can be misleading and in some circumstances inaccurate. This
leads to misinterpretation and confusion.
The few guidelines that are available are often vague. For
example, ASME B31.8 section A847.7 regarding ovality states
Testing for buckles, dents, and other diameter restrictions
Pipe having excessive deformation which affects the
serviceability of the pipeline facilities shall be repaired or
replaced. Consideration should also be given to repairing
excessive ovality which may interfere with pigging operation
or internal inspection.
For pipeline gauging, DNV OS F101, 2007, Section 408
has two standards for the size of the gauging plate, which are:
95% of nominal ID
97% of minimum ID
Calculating these to determine the diameter of the gauging
plate will provide different results. For example, a pipeline
with an OD of 22 will have a maximum OD of 22.134
(including diameter tolerance) and a minimum ID of 20.293
(including wall thickness tolerance). An ovality of 3% and a
weld bead tolerance will give a minimum ID of 19.789. Using
this value to obtain the gauging plate diameter at 97%
minimum ID gives 19.196. The gauging plate diameter at
95% nominal ID is 19.830. This leads to confusion as the
diameter of the gauging plates differs by 0.635.

A difference of a fraction of an inch may not appear to be

critical, but from a pigging perspective the change in diameter
could be significant. This is especially the case if the pipeline
has several sections with large changes in wall thickness, as is
found in the topsides pipework, risers, and some deepwater
sections. Obviously the installation contractor will opt for a
gauging plate that is the less onerous for acceptance. The
vagueness of the standards can therefore lead to conflict in
quality control and the requirements for pipeline acceptance.
However, it is no good specifying tighter tolerances, when the
means to verify them lack accuracy.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the lack of clear pigging
standards means that operational maladies are self inflicted and
the pigging problems persist.
The Pigging Products and Service Association (PPSA) has
a K factor for calculating the differential pressure needed to
drive a particular pig through a pipeline, as given below:
DP (bars) = K / Noml dia. (ins.) where:
K = Pig factor (number assigned to a specific pig)
DP = Differential pressure in bars
Noml dia. = Pipeline nominal diameter in inches
The K factor is an arbitrary number where a sphere and a
foam pig are given a value of 1, while an MFL tool has a value
of 24. Although this is a useful figure of merit, in engineering
terms it lacks accuracy, consistency of units, and relevance to
operational conditions. Just knowing an approximate driving
pressure does not provide any indication of how well a pig will
perform. It would be extremely useful if, for example, the
effectiveness of say a dewatering pig would be at displacing
water from a given pipeline. By knowing the effectiveness of
the pig is, the degree of bypass across it can be estimated.
Questions can be raised regarding the accuracy of the K
factor. For example, using the PPSA K factor, a two-disc 24
pig with a K factor of 4 will require 2.4 psi to drive it, while the
same type of pig, fitted with 4 discs will have a K factor of 6
and will need 3.6 psi to drive it. On the other hand, a cup pig
with a K factor of 10 needs a differential pressure of 6 psi, but
9 psi when fitted with brushes, since its K factor is 15. This is
not necessarily accurate since it is well known that cup pigs can
handle small ID changes better than pigs fitted with discs and
therefore require a lower differential pressure. Further, an MFL
tool should be easier to drive since it does not need to seal well,
it only needs to travel through the pipeline at a relatively
uniform speed, but it is given a K factor of 24.
The K factor does account for the driving medium, among
other factors, although it is well known that pigs suitable for
liquid pipelines are not necessarily suitable for gas lines.
Further, it is well established that pigging speed has a
significant influence on how a pig may perform inside a
particular pipeline.
Engineering principles need to be established for the
mechanics of pigging. The empirical approach currently being
followed is useful but totally inadequate for demanding
applications. How does a pipeline designer know what the
general governing boundaries are when he sets out to design a

Copyright 2009 by ASME

particular pipeline? What is needed is an engineering formula

that can provide a more meaningful measure or a dimensionless
number for the characteristics of a pig in terms of the general
flow conditions inside the pipeline. This would be something
similar to the Reynolds number which is used to easily identify
whether the flow inside a pipeline is turbulent or laminar.
One way to approach this is to modify the head loss
formula in terms of the pressure of a fluid in motion which
depends on its density and speed (p = gh) where:
p = pressure
= density
g = gravitational acceleration
h = head loss
A dimensionless number, namely a pig factor, can be
arrived at by using consistent units, re-arranging the head loss
formula, replacing head loss, h, with the diameter of the
pipeline, D, as follows:
P = p / gD, where:
P = Pig factor (dimensionless)
p = pressure
= flow density
g = gravitational acceleration
D = Inside diameter of the pipeline
Graphs can be produced for each pig showing the pig
factor which illustrates the effectiveness of that pig in a given
pipeline. An example of this is given in Figure 3.

Factor representing internal condition of pipeline

Type of pig to be used
Pig function

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:

Enhanced quality control

Protect the user from faulty or substandard products
Ensure that the pig is fit for purpose and is the right
tool for the job
Determine the operational characteristics of the pig
Establish acceptance criteria

Admittedly none of the above will be accomplished

overnight, but concerted effort made by the entire community,
pig vendors and operators alike, can make it happen.

Pig Factor Versus Diameter

18
16
Pig Factor (P)

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)

Figure 3: Pig Factor for a Range of Pipeline Diameters

REFERENCES
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems
ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.8

The P factor formula can be refined to account for all of

the following parameters:
ID of pipeline
Friction factor
Flow rate
Flow density
Flow viscosity
Differential pressure
Operating temperature
Pipeline length

American Petroleum Institute

Pressure Testing of Liquid Petroleum Pipelines
API RP 1110, Section 6.2
5th Edition, June 2007
Det Norsk Veritas Submarine Pipeline Systems
Offshore Standards DNV-OS-F101, 2007

Copyright 2009 by ASME

Copyright 2009 by ASME