Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GP 43-50
Applicability Group
Date 31 January 2009
GP 43-50
Group Practice
BP GROUP
ENGINEERING TECHNICAL PRACTICES
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Foreword
This revision of Engineering Technical Practice (ETP) GP 43-50 is the result of extensive operational
comment and consultation as well as significant lessons learned from recent pig trap failures. The
document has been restructured to bring relevant topics together while adding information on ATEX
requirements and the Global ILI Framework Agreement. The new structure is as follows:
In the event of a conflict between this document and a relevant law or regulation, the
relevant law or regulation shall be followed. If the document creates a higher obligation, it
shall be followed as long as this also achieves full compliance with the law or regulation.
Page 2 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Scope .................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Normative references............................................................................................................. 5
3. Symbols and abbreviations .................................................................................................... 6
4. Pigging overview.................................................................................................................... 7
4.1. Reasons to pig............................................................................................................ 7
4.2. Pig types ..................................................................................................................... 7
4.3. Pig selection, design, and maintenance ...................................................................... 9
4.4. In-line inspection pigging requirements ..................................................................... 12
4.5. Pigging operational considerations ........................................................................... 13
4.6. Pig trap operations, inspection and maintenance...................................................... 16
5. Pipeline design for pigging ................................................................................................... 20
5.1. General..................................................................................................................... 20
5.2. Internal diameters of linepipe .................................................................................... 21
5.3. Bends for pigging ...................................................................................................... 21
5.4. Valves, check valves, tees, and wyes ....................................................................... 22
5.5. Pig handling equipment............................................................................................. 23
6. Design of pig trap installations ............................................................................................. 24
6.1. General..................................................................................................................... 24
6.2. Service conditions and code requirements................................................................ 27
6.3. Layout requirements ................................................................................................. 28
6.4. Structural supports and lifting lug design................................................................... 29
6.5. Pipework and pressure and instrumentation requirements........................................ 30
6.6. Valves....................................................................................................................... 34
6.7. Barrel design............................................................................................................. 35
6.8. Pig trap end closures ................................................................................................ 36
6.9. Materials, fabrication, welding, and marking.............................................................. 41
7. Special applications ............................................................................................................. 42
7.1. Subsea traps............................................................................................................. 42
7.2. Pigging of flexibles .................................................................................................... 43
7.3. Tanker/barge loading lines........................................................................................ 43
7.4. Temporary pig traps.................................................................................................. 43
Annex A (Informative) Recommended pig trap closures................................................................ 44
Annex B (Informative) Tie rod type design pig trap closures ......................................................... 45
B.1 Qualification of use requirements for FAI, LTS, and TDW .................................................... 45
B.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 45
B.1.2 What are the main issues?........................................................................................ 45
B.1.3 Design of tie rod and associated fittings.................................................................... 46
Page 3 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
List of Tables
List of Figures
Page 4 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
1. Scope
2. Normative references
The following referenced documents may, to the extent specified in subsequent clauses and normative
annexes, be required for full compliance with this GP:
BP
GP 06-20 Materials for Sour Service.
GP 43-52 Inspection and Integrity Assessment of Pipeline Systems.
Page 5 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
For the purpose of this GP, the following symbols and abbreviations apply:
D Diameter.
ID Internal diameter.
OD Outer diameter.
UT Ultrasonic technique.
Page 6 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
4. Pigging overview
Page 7 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
• Mandrel: a central metal body with various components (cups, discs, wire
brushes/scraper blades, gaging plates) attached.
Utility pigs may be run as a dual module to facilitate negotiation of tight bends or
wye configurations. The coupling may be subject to high transient and fatigue loads.
Specialty pigs may be used for:
• Wax detection.
• Removing hard scale with a pinwheel.
• Magnetic cleaning.
• Internal coating.
• Leak detection.
• Other functions.
Gel
There are four main types of gel that are used in pipeline applications:
• Batching or separator gel.
• Debris pickup gel.
• Hydrocarbon gel.
• Dehydrating gel.
If used with conventional pigs (e.g., constrained between two utility pigs), gel pigs
can improve overall performance.
Gel is normally a diesel based highly viscous product but can be made with water
and a range of chemicals, depending on chemical compatibility requirements. Gel
pigs can be susceptible to dilution and gas mixing.
Sphere
Sphere pigs are normally used to sweep liquids from gas lines. Sphere pigs are
normally either made from foam throughout or consist of elastomer skin inflated
with glycol and/or water. See 4.3.1.e for more detail.
Soluble spheres are sometimes used in crude pipelines and are made from a
microcrystalline wax and amorphous polyethylene that acts as a paraffin inhibitor.
Soluble spheres are broken up by the crude oil and do not require a receiver trap.
Inspection
Simple gaging plate and calliper type pigs are used to detect small and large scale
geometric variations in pipeline cross section, respectively.
An intelligent pig is able to detect the presence of metal loss, cracks, and pipeline
features (valves, fittings, etc.) within the pipe wall, normally using either MFL or
UT.
Some pigs may require an umbilical or fibre optic cable for detailed inspection close
to the facility. These are called tethered pigs.
Specialised pigs are also used to perform leak detection and mapping (GIS).
Eddy current and video based techniques are also available.
Isolation
Isolation pigs are used to temporarily plug the line and may require a tether back to
the launching facility.
Page 8 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
The differential pressure that can be resisted depends on the type of pig. Some pigs
are dual module.
Dual or multi-diameter
A dual diameter pig functions in two distinct diameters, for example 200 mm (8 in)
and 255 mm (10 in), and is able to negotiate both 200 mm (8 in) and 255 mm (10 in)
pipe.
4.3.1. General
a. The selection and type of pig to be used and its optimum configuration for a particular task
in a pipeline shall be based upon several criteria, including:
1. Purpose (e.g., linefill, batching, cleaning, or inspection).
2. Type of information to be gathered (e.g., from an ILI pig run) and data requirements.
3. Line contents (e.g., gas, oil, or water), with or without contaminants (e.g., wax) that
may need to be displaced or removed during conventional pigging operations.
4. Required driving pressure versus available pressure.
5. Minimum and maximum internal diameter, including diameter restrictions or changes
(e.g., corrosion probes, coupons, instrument taps, valves, check valves, barred or
sphere tees). When multi-diameter pipelines are pigged, excessive wear of
components in the smaller diameter line section shall be considered.
6. Presence of tees and wyes that may require a longer pig to ensure that the pressure
driving force is maintained as the pig traverses the connection.
Foam pigs can be easily damaged and lose drive. They can also compress and enter
smaller diameter connections, laterals, valves, and tappings.
7. Minimum bend radius, bend angles, and position of back to back bends.
8. Distance the pig needs to travel and the internal condition of the pipe, with regard to
wear on the cups or discs. Large diameter pigs in gas pipelines may require wheeled
supporting structure.
9. Operating velocity range of the pig.
Some pigs have bypass ports that enable the speed of the pig to be reduced below
that of the pipeline fluid velocity. See 5.1.f.
10. Elevation profile (e.g., pig acceleration during linefill, slack line conditions for
operating oil pipelines).
11. Maximum temperature and/or fluid pressure permitted.
Due to onboard electronics, the maximum temperature for the UT and MFL
inspection vehicles is approximately 60°C (140°F). Inspection tools may tolerate
higher temperatures (approximately 80°C [176°F]) for short periods and can be
launched in a batch of cold fluid.
12. Ability to drive pig in the reverse direction (e.g., for a bidirectional pig).
13. Requirements to track or communicate with the pig.
Pigs can be fitted with transponders to enable external tracking of the pig and
sensors to detect external electromagnetic or radioactive systems to improve
positional accuracy for inspection pigs and to trigger setting and unsetting of
isolation pigs.
Page 9 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
b. Cleaning and brush/scraper pigs shall be configured to limit the amount of material that
can be removed in a single pass to the amount that can be contained in the receiver.
Bypass ports on the pig are commonly used. Otherwise, there is a risk of blocking
the line or preventing entry of the pig into the receiver trap due to the overfilling of
the pig trap with solids.
c. Some pigs should be run in combination with other pigs (e.g., cleaning pig ahead of a
batch pig) to determine wax quantities and number of cleaning runs required.
Where gel pigs or chemicals are used for cleaning or commissioning, separation
pigs can help minimize fluid bypass. Separation pigs are usually bi-directional
utility pigs incorporating a number of discs.
d. If multiple module pigs are used, the components shall be designed to allow removal if the
toll separates into component parts.
This may be avoided if the rear module includes a drive cup or disk. Alternatively,
the tool can be designed to allow it to be pushed from behind.
e. If inflatable spheres are utilized the following shall apply:
1. Spheres shall be filled with a water/glycol mix and ring gaged to ensure that they are
of the correct diameter.
Water/glycol mix ratios are, typically 50:50 or 60:40 in accordance with
manufacturer recommendations.
Sphere diameters should typically be 1% to 3% greater than the ID, in accordance
with manufacturer recommendations.
If hydrate formation is a concern following rupture of a sphere, an increased
percentage of glycol can be effective. Use of 100% glycol may deteriorate the sphere
material.
It is recommended that a sphere removal tool be available to remove spheres that
may become stuck in launcher or receivers.
2. Inspected to ensure that the filling plugs do not leak and are replaced, if necessary.
Leaking plugs have resulted in safety incidents.
Page 10 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
c. Pig Connections
Nuts, bolts, and welds shall be appropriately sized and designed to avoid failure due to
direct loading conditions or fatigue.
A number of pigs have failed due to improper selection and installation of
components requiring special operations to recover debris left in the pipeline.
d. Bypass
By utilizing differential pressure across the pig, a fluid path is created front to back of the
pig creating turbulence in front of the pig. This assists in the cleaning process and can be
used to optimize cleaning.
Excessive bypass may cause pig to stall in the pipeline.
e. Cleaning elements
A number of types of cleaning elements are available to suit the application if pipeline
cleaning is required. Expert advice should be sought for difficult or unusual cleaning
problems.
When starting a pigging program several successive runs are required to achieve
best efficiency. The first run may provide the most dramatic results but
improvements are seen in each additional run. It is essential that good records are
maintained to determine when the maximum cleaning benefit has been achieved.
This also assists in determining the frequency of future runs.
Page 11 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Page 12 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
4.5.1. General
a. Pigging operations shall be carried out using formally documented operating procedures.
b. Only competent personnel who have had the necessary training, experience and assessment
shall be used in pigging operations.
c. There are specific requirements associated with the operation, maintenance, and inspection
of pigging facilities. These are addressed in 4.6.
Page 13 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Page 14 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
2. That have been modified since the last pigging operation (e.g., hot tapped or
repaired).
3. If there is uncertainty about the condition of line (e.g., corrosion or excessive buildup
of deposits, such as hydrates and wax, or the potential of water ingress into dry gas
lines, illegal hot taps, and other third party interference).
d. The pigging plan shall address the number and sequence of pigs to be used in the pipeline.
Pigs may need to run in a sequential and progressive manner to build a picture of
the pipeline conditions and minimise the risk to the pipeline operations and the
potential for a stuck pig.
Examples of a pigging sequence are:
• A foam pig may be run before a gaging pig.
• An additional gage plate larger than the initial gage plate can subsequently be
run on one of the cleaning pigs to further increase the known bore of the
pipeline.
• There could be a requirement for multiple cleaning runs and possible special
procedures to achieve a successful inspection. Debris collected and/or damaged
pigs/gage plates should be evaluated as an ongoing process and the pigging
programme adjusted to achieve the best results.
1. If there is any doubt about condition of the bore, a foam pig should be initially run in
pipeline.
2. Only one pig should be allowed in the pipeline (or a pipeline section between pig
traps) at any time, and pig should be received and evaluated before running the next
pig.
3. If two pigs, including a dual module pig, are run in the line at the same time, second
pig should be capable of driving first pig in the event of seal failure of the pig.
4. Multiple pigs should only be deployed for specific reasons, such as commissioning,
line purges, and special cleaning operations.
e. Pipeline inlet and outlet pressures and flows shall be monitored and recorded throughout
the pigging operation.
f. Effects of pigging on the downstream process shall be assessed in design process and prior
to commencement of any pigging operation.
g. Pigging operations shall be formally recorded, including the quantity of material removed
from the pipeline and the condition of the pig.
h. Pigging procedures shall address what actions are to be taken in event of a stuck pig or loss
of components from the pig before pigging operations begin.
i. If the known location of the pig is required, transponders should be fitted to a pig to aid
detection. The type of transponder used should consider the length of time required to
mobilize and detect the pig.
This is preferable on early pig runs and if there is a change in pig size. If response
could be delayed due to accessibility, the use of radioactive isotopes with half life of
up to 12 mo is recommended.
Page 15 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
4.6.1. General
a. Operators shall have formal training of pig trap operation, maintenance, and door interlock
system.
There have been fatalities worldwide associated with incorrect operation or
inadequate maintenance of the door.
b. Detailed launch or receive procedure shall be developed for each location and for the type
of pig being launched and/or received.
c. Detailed procedures shall be developed and used for each pig trap door type, pig trap
facility, and associated fittings and equipment. These shall include the relevant
manufacturer’s operating, maintenance, and inspection requirements.
d. Manufacturers’ requirements and recommendations shall be reviewed and supplementary
information shall be developed if these are vague or unclear.
e. Procedures shall be prepared to address the inspection, maintenance, and replacement of
components with recommended frequencies.
f. Elastomeric and polymeric seals shall be selected for suitability with process conditions,
including any trace media, such as methanol, glycol, and corrosion inhibitors. Seals used in
gas service shall also be selected for resistance to explosive decompression.
g. Pig trap end closures shall comply with the requirements of 6.8.
Page 16 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
This is due to the potential for valves to pass over time and for the trap to
pressurise.
The practice of leaving the pig trap pressurised and online depends on operational
circumstances. For multiproduct pipelines, pig traps are often left online to prevent
contamination of batches. Keeping a flow through the pig traps can reduce the effect
of dead legs, solid drop out, and corrosion risk. Each case is subject to local
conditions.
b. Spheres shall not be left in pressurised launchers/receivers for extended periods.
Gas from the pipeline may enter the spheres through leaking plug seals, causing
spheres to expand in the enlarged diameter of the launcher/receiver, resulting in a
tight fit. This could result in a serious injury if the pig trap depressurised and gas
was trapped behind the over inflated sphere. See lesson learned in Annex C.
c. Risks of leaving the pig trap pressurised and online shall be assessed, including appropriate
settings for relief valves.
d. When pig traps are left offline, a path for thermal pressure relief, complete with suitable
discharge, shall be included to protect against temperature and pressure changes.
e. Air that may have been introduced into a pig trap from loading pigs or spheres should be
removed before repressurising the pig trap. Removal can be achieved through direct gas or
liquid purging or with nitrogen.
This applies to pig traps used for hydrocarbon gas systems and volatile hydrocarbon
liquids.
f. Pig trap door seals shall be tested before the pig trap is left unattended.
This can be done as an initial seal test followed by a full in service product test.
g. Sour gas or wet gas service traps should be left purged and depressurised.
Page 17 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
The volume of purging medium required for large diameter pig trap can be
considerable. This can introduce additional risks of transporting multiple packs of
nitrogen bottles or from generation equipment with pressure vessels. The risks from
these activities can exceed the risks associated with the initial operational risk of
free hydrocarbons at the pig trap.
e. Specialised equipment shall be used to determine effectiveness of an inert gas purge.
Page 18 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
If monitoring LEL limits, it is important to recognise that gas monitors may not
work accurately in atmospheres that are deficient in oxygen.
f. Subject to local conditions, equipment available, and risk assessment outcomes, Table 2
summarises recognised practices.
Product Comment
Sour gas Purge to bring toxicity levels down.
Chemicals Product specific - purge if highly flammable or toxic.
Dry gas (sales gas - water Purging can be effective, but should be site specific, as it
and hydrocarbon liquid dry) depends on frequency of operation and introduces new
risks. Purging needs a risk evaluation.
Wet gas (hydrocarbon Limited effect depending upon pig trap design.
liquids and water present)
NGL/gas condensate Limited effect depending upon pig trap design.
Aviation fuel Purging has limited effect, as it is difficult to remove
hydrocarbons. N2 may introduce additional risks.
Multi products Purging has limited effect, as it is difficult to remove
hydrocarbons. N2 may introduce additional risks.
Live crude Light oil flush followed by water flush.
Stabilised crude Water flush.
Pyrophoric material Purge and keep wet.
Radioactive scale Flush and use containment.
Page 19 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
5.1. General
The following design requirements shall be considered for pigging:
a. Strategy for selecting equipment should be developed early in the project to ensure that
equipment will operate as intended (pig compatibility with wyes and tees, etc).
b. Design of pig trap facilities should include input from operations personnel.
c. Type of pigging activities required (construction, operation/inspection/maintenance,
shutdown, or repair).
Preference for permanent or temporary pig launchers/receiver depends on size,
pipeline risk assessment, and frequency of pigging.
Portable traps may be appropriate for use in pipelines that form part of a network
and if pigging is required only for inspection and not routine operations.
Temporary pig traps for pipelines larger than 600 mm (24 in) may not be practical
because of difficulties in transport and lifting.
d. The beginning and end of a pipeline shall have pig launchers and receivers. Intermediate
pigging station requirements should be dictated by changes in pipeline diameter, pig driver
cup wear, and the quantities of solids or liquids likely to build up in front of a pig.
Other factors for consideration that could influence the wear rate of the pig seal
mechanics include pipe wall condition, pipe wall lining, if any, pig material
compatibility with the product, pigging medium, and pigging speed.
e. Type of product, including any contaminants or additives.
f. Minimum and maximum design velocities for oil and gas service are driven by pressure
drop, noise, and vibration. The optimum pig speed is typically 1 m/s to 3 m/s (3 ft/s to
10 ft/s).
Use of variable speed control systems or bypass arrangements may be considered to
achieve this range. If pig speeds are outside of this range, effectiveness of the
pigging operation may be compromised.
Specialised advice is normally required from ILI vendors on the maximum pig speed
range to achieve the inspection requirements.
Page 20 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Flow rates may need to be adjusted for the time of pigging operation. Pig speeds
may be achieved in high velocity lines by using variable flow bypass controls or
fixed bypass arrangements.
Some inspection pigs cannot operate at low velocities. This depends on the type of
signal generated and if the signal is recorded by time or distance. The minimum
speed for some tools is typically 0,3 m/s (1 ft/s).
Receipt of pigs may be controlled by having no flow or low flow through the kicker
line such that the pigs stop in the main line tee before entry into the receiver trap.
Inspection pigs require a restricted flow range to ensure smooth passage along the
pipeline, avoiding any tendency for stick and slip.
g. Relative position and distance between valves, tees and/or laterals, type of bends (cold,
heat inducted, fabricated), and bend radii.
h. Pipelines should be designed to allow deployment of isolation pigs for safe pipeline and
facilities maintenance.
Deployment of isolation plugs may impose greater restrictions on changes to
internal diameter close to the facility. Deployment of isolation plugs has been
necessary on some installations when pig trap isolation valves or the facility
Isolation or Emergency Shut Down valves need maintenance work. The ability to
deploy an isolation plug can reduce pipeline shut down times.
i. Proven capability of a multidiameter pig to pass through pipeline system if significant bore
changes are present in the pipeline system.
j. Potential for enhanced internal corrosion if the pipeline requires frequent use of scraper
pigs.
k. Use of temporary tankage to collect debris.
Page 21 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Longer radii may need to be considered if thick wall bends are used.
Most ILI vehicles will pass a three dimensional radius bend, and some are available
that will pass a tighter radius.
Pipelines less than 100 mm (4 in) diameter may require longer bend radii for ILI.
c. Offset bends of 30 degrees or greater should have a minimum straight length between them
of 2D. Back to back bends should not be used, as they may limit suitability for ILI.
d. Mitred bends shall not be used.
e. If there is the potential need for the use of a tethered pig for inspection, use of bends
should be kept to a minimum to avoid excessive loads on the cable connection.
Page 22 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
7. Optimum guide plate spacing is equidistant from adjacent plates and tee branch pipe
walls.
8. Figure 1 provides barring design details.
NOM. NO. OF
T H
PIPE SCRAPER
IN. (MM) IN. (MM)
SIZE BARS
6” 2 (9.5) 1 (25.4)
8” 2 (9.5) 1 (25.4)
NOTES:
• MAX. CLEARANCE = 6 mm (¼”) AND MIN. CLEARANCE = 0.
• SCRAPER BARS SHALL BE EQUALLY SPACED OVER THE INTERNAL
DIAMETER OF THE TEE.
• SCRAPER BAR MATERIAL SHALL BE THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE TEE.
• MATERIAL SHALL BE APPROPRIATE TO PIPELINE DESIGN CODE
Page 23 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Cassettes enable the pig or spheres to be preloaded in multiples and loaded into a
launching trap in one operation.
Cradles, if used with launching traps, can be loaded externally and allow pig to be
moved into its launch position via a winch/plunger mechanism, and for receiving
traps, the incoming pig comes to rest in the internal cradle, allowing for its removal
from the trap.
b. Cassette and cradle pig handling equipment shall be designed and installed as an integrated
part of the trap to preserve its integrity as a pressure vessel.
Consideration should be given to ensuring unimpaired use of any high pressure
cleaning nozzles located within the barrel to facilitate removal of debris and wax
from the trap.
6.1. General
a. Design of pig trap facilities shall include input from operations personnel and take account
of layout, access, lighting, equipment handling, cleaning, etc.
b. Typical pig launchers should be configured as shown in Figure 2 and pig receivers as
shown in Figure 3.
Page 24 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
" #
"
% &%
!
TRAP ISOLATION VALVE
%
LONGEST ILI PIG
XI
TO CONFIRM
PIG ENGAGED XI
TO CONFIRM
PIG CLEARED
TRAP VALVE
Page 25 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
"
Bypass Valve
Balance Line
Relief
Valve
"
% &%
%
TRAP ISOLATION VALVE
%
TO CONFIRM MORE THAN LONGEST ILI PIG
PIG ARRIVAL XI
TO CONFIRM
XI PIG CLEARED
TRAP VALVE
c. In addition to the factors for pipeline design, in 5, design of pig traps should incorporate
the following:
1. Applicable design codes.
2. Service conditions.
3. Minimum temperature.
4. Physical interface with pipeline (e.g., insulation flange).
Page 26 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Page 27 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
g. Maximum design temperature shall not be less than maximum temperature that the pig trap
system could attain or to which it could be exposed during operation, startup, or shutdown.
h. Consideration shall be given to pressure increases arising from thermal gain in the event of
shut-in conditions (e.g., due to solar radiation).
i. A minimum design temperature shall be stated and shall be based on minimum ambient
temperature and on the conditions (e.g., blowdown, which could occur during operations).
j. An internal corrosion allowance should be considered, even if such an allowance has not
been made for pipeline to which it is connected. A corrosion allowance may be required
because of the different internal and external conditions associated with the trap.
6.3.1. General
a. Pig traps shall be designed to allow access to the pipeline for inspection and maintenance.
b. Pig traps shall generally be:
1. Located based on overall site risk assessments, considering potential release of
hydrocarbons, potential for ignition, and classification of areas.
2. Adjacent to each other for ease of pigging operations.
Separation distance from launcher closure to receiver closures should be at least
1,5 times the length of the longest inline inspection tool anticipated.
3. Orientated with their end closures pointing away from personnel and critical items of
equipment.
Accidents have occurred resulting in door failure and pigs exiting the pig trap at
high speed.
c. Suitable access space should be provided beyond the end closure door for pig handling.
A covered protection to the trap enclosure area may be required, depending on the
climatic conditions.
d. Suitable access space should be provided for maintenance of equipment.
e. The trap should normally be horizontal, with vertical traps used if space is a premium.
Vertical orientation of the pig receiver is not normally recommended, as debris can
fall and accumulate in the pig trap valve.
f. The elevation of the bottom of the end closure on horizontal pig traps should be
approximately 700 mm (28 in) and not more than 1 100 mm (43 in) above the working
surface to provide sufficient room to slope the drain lines, as well as facilitate easy
handling of end closure and pigs.
g. A platform shall be provided adjacent to any equipment (e.g., valve, pig signallers) that is:
1. More than 1 500 mm (60 in) above grade (centre of the handwheel in the case of a
valve).
2. Used during pigging operations and/or for maintenance.
h. Consideration shall be given to the requirements for handling of contaminated pigs and
displaced solids.
There may be a need for sumps, containment areas, cleaning facilities, and an
ergonomic layout such that contaminated pigs can readily be transferred from the
receiver to the cleaning area.
Page 28 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
i. Pig trap layout should be such that operation and maintenance of equipment, valves, and
instruments shall be possible without temporary ladders and scaffolding.
j. Access ways shall be provided to and from pig storage area.
k. Pig traps shall drain by gravity into appropriate drainage area.
l. Consideration should be given to potential blockage of permanent drains and tanks.
m. If a drain system is not available, provision shall be made for waste to be collected for
disposal to designated disposal area.
n. Adequate lighting shall be provided for pigging operations if 24 hr operations are required.
o. Spading is not recommended as a regular method of providing positive isolation of the
launcher/receiver vessel.
p. Protection of door and locking mechanism from the elements/weather should be
considered for traps in exposed locations and may be subjected to sea spray or debris from
drilling operations.
Page 29 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
b. Supports/clamps shall be designed to carry the weight of the pig trap system filled with
highest density fluid likely in service (usually water), together with the weight of
intelligent pigs, if applicable.
c. Saddle supports shall be designed to applicable pipeline code or vessel code being applied
to trap.
For ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII vessels, see GIS 46-010,
AA 7.2.e.
d. Supports under the barrel should normally be sliding/clamp type to compensate for
expansion of unrestrained part of pipeline.
e. Welded supports, if used, shall comply with applicable pipeline design codes.
f. If there would normally be a potential for corrosion occurring under clamps, isolation
material shall be used between clamp and pipe and provisions shall be made to facilitate
inspection.
Other support requirements may apply to vertical traps.
g. Piping supports may be fixed if design calculations indicate that sufficient flexibility is
incorporated in pipework to compensate for axial and transverse movements of trap.
h. Electrical isolation joints, if used, shall allow sufficient movement to avoid stressing of
joint above its design limit.
i. Supports may need to be electrically isolated if isolated joints are not used.
Typical earthing (grounding) details are given in GIS 46-020.
j. Supports should be positioned such that pig trap valves can be removed for maintenance or
replacement without removal of barrel.
k. Lifting lugs and trunnions shall comply with GIS 46-010.
l. Launchers and receivers shall be bonded into earthing (grounding) grid for facility.
Integrity of the pipeline cathodic protection system shall be maintained.
m. Electrical surge arrestor installation should be considered for insulation joints in
launcher/receiver pipework.
6.5.1. General
a. Pipework not designed to the pipeline code should comply with ASME B31.3.
b. Closed drain systems should be designed to handle debris flushed from pig traps.
c. Pipework connections should be flanged to allow maximum flexibility during
commissioning and future modification, if required.
d. Pipework should be a minimum of 50 mm (2 in) for robustness. Sizing of drains, vent
lines, and pressure gage tappings shall take account of trapped volume, phase of product,
and risk of blockage.
Pressure gages have produced false readings because of blockage.
e. For pipelines above 350 mm (14 in) and any prone to waxing or other blockage,
consideration shall be given to using 100 mm (4 in) connections off trap to first valve, even
if it is reduced thereafter.
The size of the pipework may be dictated by use of the pig trap during pipeline
testing. In these circumstances, a larger diameter connection may be needed with a
reducer fitted to the line, if necessary.
Page 30 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
f. System interlocks
1. System interlocks or special provisions shall be used to ensure the safety of personnel
operating the pig trap and prevent accidental release of pressure from the pig trap.
Well written, risk assessed, operating procedures executed by competent operating
personnel qualified on the procedures are needed to satisfy the definition of “special
provisions”.
2. Interlocks should be provided between the closure and isolating valves, namely main
inlet and outlet, vent, and drain isolating valves.
3. System interlocks or special provisions may be incorporated to prevent accidental
opening of both end closure and any valves (e.g., particularly remotely operated pig
trap valves and isolating valves) exposed to pipeline pressure while the trap vessel is
open.
4. The interlock mechanism should allow for precommissioning and commissioning of
the system (e.g., by providing additional keys).
Page 31 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Page 32 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
e. Pig traps can contain air or air/hydrocarbon mixtures, which shall be taken into account if
connecting to flare systems.
Page 33 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
6.6. Valves
6.6.1. General
The general issues of isolation and valve type selection for pig trap valves are
covered in detail in GP 43-35, GIS 43-351, and GIS 43-352. General requirements
on valve type selection are provided in GP 62-01.
a. Double block and bleed isolation is required for any pigging operation. Preference is
always for two separate pig trap isolation valves, especially for pipelines in which pigging
is a frequent activity or critical to ongoing operations and failure of a seal cannot be
tolerated.
b. A strategy shall be developed to facilitate maintenance or replacement of pig trap isolation
valves.
c. Isolation of the main pig trap should be designed to facilitate maintenance and/or future
modifications to the pig trap and pig trap isolation valve without a pipeline shutdown.
This can mean inclusion of sufficient distance between the receiver/launcher main
trap valve and the local bypass tee to allow setting of a remote setting plug to
provide isolation, if a second valve is not available.
d. Appropriate valve seats shall be selected for the particular service conditions.
This is affected by the type of service (e.g., solids content and chemical) and degree
of leak tightness required (e.g., LPG).
Page 34 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
h. Drain valves for receivers shall be quarter turn valves having a high degree of abrasion
resistance, such as tungsten carbide coated ball valves and stellite/carbide coated balanced
plug valves.
Receiver drain valves usually have to cope with highly abrasive service.
i. Vent valves may be globe type but shall have a tight shutoff isolation valve (soft seated
ball or balanced plug) in series.
j. For gas service, blowdown valve shall be a tight shutoff ball or balanced plug valve with a
downstream globe valve or orifice restriction.
k. A 50 mm (2 in) isolating valve and a 50 mm (2 in) check valve shall be installed in purge
connection, if applicable. The isolating valve shall be installed on the barrel side for tight
shutoff of purge connection.
The check valve is intended to prevent hydrocarbons entering the purge/flush line.
l. Chemical injection connection, if required, shall include a tight shutoff valve of minimum
diameter of 50 mm (2 in). Diameter of the connection shall be at least 50 mm (2 in).
m. For LPG service, a double valve arrangement shall be installed in each drain and vent.
Second valve in a double valve arrangement shall be placed sufficient distance apart from
the first to provide an alternative means of closing the line.
This is because the first valve may freeze, preventing it from being closed.
n. Unless isolating valves are provided on each side, modified ball valves having a side entry
point that allows the insertion and removal of pigs shall not be used on a live system.
At least one valve manufacturer offers such modified ball valves that, while offering
some operational facility, only provide single isolation between operator and the
live process.
6.7.1. General
a. Trap barrel shall be capable of launching one and receiving two standard cleaning or
batching pigs.
b. For launchers, the length of the barrel shall be sufficient to launch the longest ILI pig
anticipated (See Figure 2).
Development of crack detection tools may require the use of longer inspection tools
than are currently available.
c. For receivers, the length from the taper to the main valve shall be at least as long as longest
pig. Total length of the major and minor barrel should be greater than the longest pig or the
cleaning pig and maximum amount of debris (see Figure 3).
d. For receivers, the length of pipe before expanding into the barrel shall be sufficient to
ensure that the ILI tool fully passes through the receiver isolation valve.
e. The major barrel shall be at least D plus 50 mm (2 in) for D less than or equal to 400 mm
(16 in).
f. For larger diameter, the major barrel shall be at least D plus 100 mm (4 in).
g. The trap reducer shall be:
1. Eccentric design for horizontal traps without an internal tray or basket and for
inclined launcher traps (with the bottom of the entire barrel at the same level).
2. Concentric design for vertical traps, inclined sphere receiver traps, or horizontal traps
with an internal tray or basket.
Page 35 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
h. Internal diameter of the minor barrel (neck pipe) shall be the same as that of the pipeline.
i. If a trap may be used for facilitating hydrotesting or commissioning, an additional
connection with a blind flange may be added.
j. Transitions in the internal diameter due to wall thickness variations greater than 2,4 mm
(0,094 in) shall be tapered to a minimum angle of 14 degrees to the pipe axis to allow for
the smooth passage of pig.
k. For horizontal receivers, barrel should be sloped (typically 1:100) down towards the drain
at the end closure to improve draining of liquids from barrel.
l. Horizontal launchers should be sloped (typically 1:100) down towards the pipeline.
m. Sleeves may be required to facilitate launching in concentric vertical traps or if multiple
module tools are used.
n. Sleeves may be used to facilitate launching of separate cleaning tools to avoid the need to
open the pig trap between launches.
o. Universal pig traps may be used in some locations. These can be used to both launch and
receive pigs.
p. Sleeves and specialist launching systems may be used to facilitate multiple launches
without the need to open and close pig trap between each launch.
q. Length of the receive pig trap needs to be able to accommodate all pigs launched together
with any products or debris that may be removed.
r. If automatic sphering is intended:
1. Major barrel length for launching and receiving shall be based on the number of
spheres to be handled.
2. Launcher barrel shall be inclined at sufficient angle to allow spheres to roll forward
for launching and launcher barrel shall include retractable launcher pins.
3. Receiver barrel shall be inclined at sufficient angle to allow spheres to roll away from
the minor barrel/reducer.
The minimum angle of inclination depends on the diameter of the pipeline and may
range between 2 degrees and 10 degrees to the horizontal.
s. Sphere release mechanisms, depending on environment location and pigging schedule,
shall be of the mechanical finger, flap, or valve type.
Mechanical fingers are not practical for use with traps in which the spheres exceed
500 mm (20 in). This is because of the high loads that a large sphere can exert.
6.8.1. General
There have been a number of significant failures associated with pig trap end
closures resulting in fatalities and release of hydrocarbons. These failures are
attributable to design, operating, and maintenance practices.
a. End closure of new traps shall be designed in accordance with functional and safety
requirements of the pressure vessel code.
For example, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII, Division 1,
UG-35.2b.
b. New trap closures shall have a double locking mechanism to prevent opening of closure
under pressure.
Page 36 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
c. Recommended trap closures for new construction and replacement closures on existing
launchers and receivers are one of the following:
1. GD Engineering BANDLOCK2 type, which has a duplex stainless steel conical band
fitted between the door and neck to transmit loads uniformly to the full 360 degree
circumference of the neck.
2. Pipeline Engineering (PE) (UK) ROC which is similar in design to the GD
engineering closure.
Double locking refers to redundancy in the mechanical retention system such that
failure of any component will not cause accidental release of the closure door. It
does not refer to interlock systems that are used to manage operational sequences.
d. Guidance on end closure selection and testing requirements is given in Tables 3 and 4.
e. Closure mechanisms involving the use of external clamp rings and threaded screws are not
preferred but specific TDW, FAI, and LTS end closures are acceptable. Guidance on the
use of external clamp type closures, including three acceptable vendors is provided in
Annex B.
These designs have lead to significant failures resulting in uncontrolled releases of
hydrocarbons. If these designs are in current use, special operating and
maintenance procedures are required. Annex B provides further requirements for
safe application.
f. Corrosion resistant overlays shall normally be provided on sealing surfaces.
There have been a number of failures of end closures due to corrosion pitting on the
seal surfaces. If this type of failure could occur either due to the pipeline contents or
the external environment, use of overlays is recommended.
Page 37 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
8. Closure clamp angles (in radians) shall be less than the coefficient of friction used in
design.
9. A full finite element analysis of closure shall be conducted and all deflections and
rotations shall be assessed to demonstrate that design assumptions remain valid under
application of pressure (e.g., clamp angles are not changed significantly by the
pressure loading).
10. Controls exist to ensure that tie rod cannot be overloaded during the preloading
operation (e.g., torque limiting devices).
b. Existing end closures of this type shall be surveyed to identify components that could
affect loading on the parts (e.g., wear, tolerances, out of alignment, damage). If the
condition is acceptable, it is recommended that a redundancy device(s) be fitted, if not
previously equipped.
c. If an existing bolted external clamp end closure is non-compliant with 6.8.2.a, one of the
following actions shall be taken:
1. Replace the trap end closure or the entire trap.
2. Conduct a formal review of pig trap operating procedures to ensure minimal risk to
personnel using the existing trap.
Determine whether pressurisation of pig traps can be achieved safely without
having to operate valves in the immediate vicinity of closure.
3. Modify the pressurising system to enable valves to be operated at a safe distance from
the closure).
Page 38 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Size and pressure size and Size and pressure above those Size and pressure > 1,2 x
pressure made before of same made before but < 1,2 x size size and pressure made
design. and pressure. before or any new design.
GD, PE, and other Review track record. Check Design verified by scaling Full design review in
internal and design calculations. Design in previous designs. Review shall accordance with ASME VIII,
approved type accordance with ASME VIII, include detailed design, Div 2 Part 4, including full
closures Div 1 or 2, and App 24 stresses, strains, clearances, FEA of all parts, checking
requirements. Supporting extrusion gaps by scaling. stresses, deflections,
calculations and FEA to be Design verified by scaling. extrusion gaps, deflections
included. Satisfactory experience Independent design review and fits. Independent design
without calculations is NOT recommended. review required.
acceptable. Independent design
review optional.
External tie rod Full design review in accordance Full design review in Not permitted unless agreed
type (non- with ASME VIII, Division 1, or accordance with ASME VIII, otherwise.
preferred option) ASME VIII, Div 2 with FEA. Tie Div 2 App 4, including full FEA
rods shall have redundancy, and of all parts, checking stresses,
design parameters of App 24 deflections, extrusion gaps,
(including minimum angles) to be deflections and fits. Backup
adopted. (See design section). design in accordance with
Satisfactory experience without Div 1 App 24 also.
calculations is NOT acceptable. Independent design review
Independent design review required.
required.
Note:
Term “size and pressure” refers to product size in mm/inches and pressure in bar/psi.
d. End closure safety and operating gear shall be designed to ensure safety in operation and
comply with the following:
1. Failure of any single component of the locking and holding mechanism shall not lead
to release of closure.
2. Locking mechanism shall incorporate redundancy of critical components.
3. At least one positively located safety bleed device shall be provided on the door to
relieve any residual pressure before the door can be opened.
4. Any release of residual pressure shall be directed away from the operator.
5. Visual examination of the security and integrity of the locking and holding elements,
if in the closed position, shall be enabled.
e. Allow for full maintenance, including greasing and realignment of mating surfaces in situ.
f. Manually operated closures shall be easy to operate by one person using hand tools only.
g. Door closure mechanism shall be able to be maintained without removal of whole trap.
h. Pig trap door should have mechanical device to ensure that the door cannot be accidentally
dislodged from mountings.
i. Materials for appurtenances, including bleed valve, hinges, locking, and holding
mechanisms, shall be selected to provide good environmental corrosion resistance, as well
as long term reliable operation.
j. If required, end closure shall be suitable for vacuum conditions.
This is to allow the pipeline to be vacuum dried.
Page 39 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Size and pressure size Size x pressure < 1,2 x size and Size and pressure > 1,2 x size
and pressure made before. pressure made before. and pressure made before.
GD, PE, and Hydrotest in accordance Hydrotest in accordance with the Hydrotest in accordance with the
other internal with the design code design code. Check for any design code, with strain gages in
type closures followed by a leak test at a shakedown and dimensional critical stress locations. Check for
minimum of 1,1 x design changes after pressure test. Check any nonelastic behaviour during
pressure at least two cycles, dimensions for any deformation test and for any inconsistencies
using water for liquid service and clearances against design between strain gage and
traps and gas valves. After hydrotest, leak tests at theoretical stress values. Check
(nitrogen/helium) for gas 1,1 x design pressure, 5 cycles for any shakedown and
service traps. Check seals minimum, using water for liquid dimensional changes after
and all moving parts for service and gas (nitrogen/helium) pressure test. Check any
extrusion and degradation for gas service traps. Check seals deformation and clearances
after test. and moving parts for extrusion and against design valves. After
degradation after test. hydrotest, leak test at 1,1 x
design pressure, 10 cycles
minimum, using water for liquid
service and gas (nitrogen/helium)
for gas service traps. Check
seals and moving parts for
extrusion and degradation after
test.
External tie Hydrotest in accordance Hydrotest in accordance with the Not permitted.
rod type with the design code. Tie design code, with strain gages in
(nonpreferred rod(s) to be strain gaged critical stress locations including tie
option) during hydrotest, and strain rods. Note: redundancy device to
values judged against be removed during strain gage test
design values. Note: of tie rod(s). Check for any
redundancy device to be nonelastic behaviour during test
removed during strain gage and for any inconsistencies
test of tie rod. After between strain gage and
hydrotest, leak test at a theoretical stress values. Check for
minimum of 1,1 x design any shakedown and dimensional
pressure at least 5 cycles, changes after pressure test. Check
using water followed by any deformation and clearances
5 cycles on gas against design valves. After
(nitrogen/helium) for gas hydrotest, leak test at a minimum of
service traps. Redundancy 1,1 x design pressure at least
device removed for water 10 cycles, using water followed by
tests, and installed for gas 10 cycles on gas (nitrogen/helium)
tests. Check seals and all for gas service traps. Redundancy
moving parts for extrusion device removed for water tests and
and degradation after each installed for gas tests. Check seals
cycle. and moving parts for extrusion and
degradation after each cycle.
Note:
Term “size and pressure” refers to product size in inches/mm and pressure in psi/bar.
k. Closure hinges and locking mechanisms shall be suitable for repeated operation.
Failures of pig traps have occurred due to mechanical wear after period of time.
l. Fatigue calculations shall include the end closure.
m. Fillet welds and the hinges shall be fabricated, designed, and mounted to prevent sagging
of the door, if opened, over the specified design life of the pig trap end closure.
n. Blind flanges shall not be considered for frequently used trap end closures.
Blind flanges are sometimes useful for temporary or infrequently used pig traps.
Page 40 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
6.9.1. Materials
a. Materials shall comply with the pipeline design code. Materials selected shall be suitable
for the design minimum temperature for pig trap.
b. For sour service applications, GP 06-20 shall apply.
c. Plate and forged materials are preferred for manufacture of pig traps.
d. Plate may be subject to HIC testing for sour service applications.
e. Castings shall only be allowed if:
1. Suitable NDE is applied, including volumetric.
2. Repaired welds are mapped.
3. No weld repairs require removal of more than 25% of the weld thickness.
4. A pilot casting approach has been used.
5. Pouring simulations/finite element analysis of the method has been used.
f. Flanges shall be specified in accordance with ASME B16.5 or MSS SP-44, as appropriate
according to size, and shall be the same as those of connected pipeline.
Requirements on bolt tightening is given in GP 46-01, Annex Q.
g. Fittings shall comply with ASME B16.9 or MSS SP-75 as appropriate. Threaded
connections shall not be used.
h. Attention shall be given to the compatibility of any weld end pup pieces with the pipeline.
6.9.2. Fabrication
a. Fabrication shall comply with applicable pipeline code or GIS 46-010 and GP 46-01.
b. Fabrication shall take into account tolerances required for door closure, timing of any
required heat treatment, and machined finish.
c. The inside of the trap shall be free from obstructions that could prevent the free rolling of
spheres or travel of pigs or carriers.
d. External nonmachined surfaces shall be coated.
e. Machined surfaces shall be suitably coated to prevent corrosion and shall be protected
against damage during transport, storage, and installation.
f. If the end closure is manufactured by a different vendor than the pig trap fabricator, the
end closure shall be fully inspected in accordance with manufacturer recommendations to
ensure that the end closure functions correctly and has not been damaged.
6.9.3. Marking
a. A stainless steel plate shall be fitted to end closure with permanent marking stating that the
operator shall refer to the manufacturer instructions for the safe operation of the closure.
Typical nameplates for pressure vessels are given in GIS 46-020.
b. Each pig trap shall have a nameplate with the following information:
1. Name of the pipeline in which the trap is installed.
2. Vendor name.
3. Order number and date.
4. Year of manufacture.
Page 41 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
5. Design pressure.
6. Maximum and minimum design temperatures.
7. Test pressure.
8. Weight empty.
9. Class of flange connections.
7. Special applications
Page 42 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
This may apply additional restraints on material selection and requirements for
marking.
c. Valves requiring onsite subsea operation shall be ROV operable.
The standard interface with ROV should comply with the applicable pipeline code or
ISO 13628-8.
d. Anchor points shall be provided to assist pig loading and unloading.
Page 43 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Annex A
(Informative)
Recommended pig trap closures
Table A.1 and Table A.2 are current recommended pig trap end closures and their potential
operation range based on information provided by vendors.
a. Cells marked with “ ” indicate that a design is available with supporting design
documentation and test verification data.
b. Cells marked with “?” indicate that a design is available, but further verification and
testing is required.
c. Cells marked with “X” indicate that no design is currently available.
Page 44 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Annex B
(Informative)
Tie rod type design pig trap closures
B.1.1 Introduction
a. There have been isolated failures of pig trap doors on BP assets. Most of the failures have
been with closures that have external tie rods securing the doors. While they are not the
preferred type, it is likely they will remain in service as such issues with potential
enclosure failure need to be noted and addressed. This Annex summarises the findings.
b. The tie rod type closure can work reliably, including applications on high pressure and
large diameters, as verified by the reliable operation of several 1 m, 34 MPa (42 in,
5 000 psi) rated closures.
c. The closure designs manufactured by Fauske & Associates, Inc. (FAI), Ledcor Technical
Services (LTS), and T.D. Williamson (TDW) are used in a number of BP facilities
globally. A detailed design review was conducted to clearly understand the designs,
potential limitations, and compliance with this GP.
Page 45 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
j. A carefully designed redundancy device could incorporate a system that ensures proper
assembly of the tie rod components. Device should be designed such that, if the tie rods
and parts are not correctly positioned, the redundancy device would not engage.
Page 46 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
and the joint does not require any significant movement to close, only the small
compression of the O-ring.
g. The TDW design has no requirement for any preload. The joint is mounted on a radial
spigot, so even if the joint separates, the O-ring should still function.
B.1.6.1 General
a. The clamp angle dictates the type of loading on the door and tie rod. The larger the angle,
the higher geared is the translation from tie rod load to joint load.
b. At zero degrees, there is no translation from tie rod load to joint face. See the following
table.
Angle Preload on joint faces Effect of pressure on joint Note
face
Large (typically 15 degrees) Relatively large movement Tie rod can be back driven In most cases, the preload
LTS closure. of joint faces as joint is by pressure causing loads. will be intended to be
tightened. Good gasket greater than the separation
compression. force.
Small angles (typically 3 to Relatively small movement Tie rod unlikely to see high This type of joint requires
5 degrees). FAI type on the joint faces as the rod back driving forces, as only a small preload.
closure. is tightened. angle is less than or equal
to friction angle.
Zero Angle. TDW type No movement of joint face. No back driving of tie rod by No preload required.
closure. pressure.
Page 47 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Clamp in contact with outside of hubs, on radius, Misalignment causing localised deformation: increasing
increasing angle (topping out). angle.
Clamp in contact with inside of hubs, on radius, increasing Deformation increasing angles: weak design.
angle (bottoming out).
d. From these four load cases, it can be seen that there is usually a tendency for the contact
angle to increase above the design value.
e. In each load case, if pressure increases the tie rod load, the joint could separate further.
f. As the joint separates, the angle may increase, further loading the tie rod, opening the joint
further until eventual release of the closure.
B.1.6.5. Materials
a. The use of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII design method in
combination with nonlisted materials is fairly commonplace for high strength materials,
particularly on pipeline components.
b. The approach taken by LTS is reasonable (i.e., using a stress intensity of the lesser of
UTS/3 and 2/3 times yield stress). Additional safeguards should be taken on the material,
such as ductility and elongation.
c. In localised areas and under certain load conditions, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section VIII, Div 2, permits 1,5 and 3 times the stress intensity value (see Figure 4,
130.1). The material needs to have sufficient ductility and elongation to locally allow
shakedown and plastic deformation without failure.
d. As a minimum Charpy values should form part of the material specification, as should a
minimum elongation value, suggested to be greater than 20%. Recommended Charpy
values (in Joules) are yield strength (in N/mm2)/10.
e. In some cases, vendors take a pseudo material approach to design. They use high strength
materials, typically F60, which is not listed, but for the purpose of the calculations, use the
allowable stresses of a near equivalent material, such as ASTM A350 LF2.
f. As many of the ASTM materials have no maximum values to strength, it is possible to
recertify a F60 type material to LF2 requirements as permitted in UG10. This permits
closure to be “U” stamped. The FEA then may be assessed using the actual material
properties.
Page 48 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Page 49 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Annex C
(Informative)
Onshore gas terminal incident at 16 in sphere receiver
C.1. Incident
a. While unloading spheres from a 400 mm (16 in) receiver on 25 October 1983, an operator
fell from the access platform as two spheres were ejected by captive gas pressure.
b. Fortunately, the operator was not hit by the receiver door or the spheres, the latter causing
structural damage to steelwork and piping before coming to rest 15 m and 50 m (50 ft and
160 ft) away, respectively.
c. The operator did sustain minor injuries as a result of his fall from the access structure.
a. The terminal receives gas from offshore gas production platforms through 400 mm (16 in)
and 600 mm (24 in) pipelines. As the gas contains a high proportion of liquid hydrocarbon
condensate, it is necessary to pass spheres through the pipelines at frequent intervals to
prevent undue buildup of liquid in the pipelines. The hollow spheres are pressurised with a
water/glycol mixture up to 830 kPag (120 psig) to obtain a close fit within the pipelines.
The inflation valves are capped off with screw plugs and O-ring seals.
b. Insertion of spheres into the pipelines is performed at the production platforms, using
purpose built launchers designed to contain a number of spheres held under pipeline
pressure (approximately 4 800 kPag [700 psig]) that can then be launched individually to
meet production requirements. Sphere receivers are installed at the shore (terminal) end to
collect the spheres. These are designed to be isolated and vented down and the spheres are
removed to atmosphere without affecting the main pipeline operation.
c. At the time of the incident, two spheres had passed into the 400 mm (16 in) receiver, and
attempts were made to isolate the receiver from the main pipeline.
d. After several attempts, isolation was apparently achieved, and the receiver was vented to
atmospheric pressure at its downstream end. Depressuring was confirmed by operating a
bleed screw on the receiver door, and the operator proceeded to open the door. The spheres
were then ejected in the manner described.
e. Subsequent investigation indicated that gas had entered the spheres from the pipeline
through leaking plug seals, causing them to expand in the enlarged diameter of the receiver
as it was depressured, maintaining a tight fit.
f. Gas had also continued to pass into the receiver through the shut isolation valve, thus
maintaining pipeline pressure in the section of receiver upstream of the spheres.
Unfortunately, this pressure was sufficient to dislodge the spheres just as the door was
opened.
g. The successful insertion, passage, and collection of spheres had been performed in the
400 mm (16 in) line between gas production platforms and the terminal for nearly 20 yr.
h. Pressurisation of the spheres in this case is thought to be a combination of slight leakage of
the plug seals on the spheres themselves and the fact that the spheres had been held in a
fully pressurised sphere launcher for about a month.
i. It is noteworthy that the operator followed the established procedure for depressuring and
venting the receiver before opening the door.
Page 50 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
C.3. Recommendations
C.4. Comment
a. This incident highlights the necessity to take particular care if breaking containment at
sphere or pig receivers and launchers.
b. Fortunately only a minor injury occurred as a result of this incident.
c. Two operators were killed in the U.S. when attempting to open a sphere launcher door
before ensuring that the launcher had been correctly depressured.
d. Theoretically, once the spheres are full of glycol/water mixture there should be no
possibility of gas ingress into the sphere from the outside. The external pressure applied to
the sphere acts through the flexible wall onto an incompressible sphere of liquid. The
design is such that it is impossible to hydraulically fill the sphere, and a compressible
vapour space is always present that is capable of being pressured up from the outside
should the plug seal leak. If the external pressure is released, any increased internal
pressure becomes trapped, resulting in a larger sphere diameter. It is important, therefore,
that spheres are not left in pressurised launchers for excessive lengths of time to preclude
the potential for gas entering the spheres in the manner described. In addition to modifying
their procedures in this respect, the terminal management are also pursuing the matter with
sphere manufacturers with a view to achieving an engineering solution to this problem.
e. Sphere launchers and receivers that are permanently installed in a pipeline system need to
be designed to withstand the maximum operating pressure of the system. Since launchers
and receivers have to be opened while the pipeline is in service, they should always be
installed in conjunction with twin high integrity isolation block valves and have suitable
valved connections to allow the flow to be directed into or out of the launcher/receiver and
to allow the launcher/receiver to be drained. Two vents to atmosphere are essential (one at
each end of the launcher/receiver) and, as an additional safeguard, there should be some
form of device that prevents the door from being opened until the pressure has been fully
relieved. It also needs to be possible to prime the launcher/receiver under controlled
conditions.
f. An incident also occurred in which an instrument mechanic attempted to release a stuck
sphere from a receiver using compressed air. The sphere was eventually ejected and
travelled a distance of 230 m (750 ft), hitting various obstacles in its path. The report of
that incident discusses the dangers of incorrect operation of sphere launchers/receivers.
Page 51 of 52
31 January 2009 GP 43-50
Pigging, Pig Launchers, and Receivers
Bibliography
BP
[1] GP 43-35, Valves for Pipelines.
[2] GIS 43-351, ISO 14313 (API 6D) Pipeline Valves (non-subsea).
Page 52 of 52