Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2014
November 14-20, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

IMECE2014-37452

CFD ANALYSIS OF PHENOMENA ATTRIBUTED TO PIGGING RUN IN A

STRAIGHT PIPELINE

Manuel A. Borregales Ruben Ensalzado

Mechanical Energy Conversion Laboratory Project & Engineering Deparment
Universidad Simon Bolivar CTG21
Sartejas, Baruta 89000 Santa Eduvigis, 1071
Caracas, Venezuela Caracas, Venezuela
Email: 04-36766@usb.ve Email: ruben.ensalzado@ctg21.com

Miguel Asuaje
Mechanical Energy Conversion Laboratory
Universidad Simon Bolivar
Sartejas, Baruta 89000
Caracas, Venezuela
Email: asuajem@usb.ve

ABSTRACT pressure distributions around the Pig were obtained. The result
helps to understand the flow behaviour during the pigging pro-
Growing energy demand requires reliable, safe and long- cesses, providing additional insight on design and operation of
lasting production systems, including, according to the new leg- these devices.
islation, periodic inspections of the pipelines. Currently, design
of cleaning tools meant for oil lines, is largely based on exper-
imental information. Big service companies and research cen-
NOMENCLATURE
tres, built the right tools for their operations, but questions still
r Fluid density.
remain regarding the behaviour of these devices under different ~V Velocity field.
flow conditions. In recent years, advances in CFD have allowed
to analyse complex phenomena in many industrial applications, ~p Pressure field.
participating in technology improvement. The present work pro- t Time.
poses a novel 2D CFD methodology to simulate the pigging pro- g Gravity.
cesses, considering the straight movement of a Pig through a
pipeline with a two-phase flow: water-air and oil-gas. The algo-
rithm deforms the grid and re meshes specific domain sections to INTRODUCTION
account for Pig translation relative to the pipe. Three Pig models Currently, oil and natural gas consumption represents a 65
(Mandrel Pigs, Foam Pigs and Spherical Pigs) were simulated in % of the total energy in the world. Additionally, recent studies
a horizontal pipe under single-phase liquid flow conditions. Sub- conducted by the world energy council and the international en-
sequently Pigs were simulated under two-phase flow air-water ergy agency show how for 2020 the energy demand will grow
conditions. Pressure and velocities profiles inside the pipe, and between 50 % and 60 % [9]. All this oil and gas need to be

1 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83087/ on 02/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo


FIGURE 1. Pig Launcher and Hydrocarbon Line (left), and Pig Re-
ceptor (right), it was take from [24] and [25]
FIGURE 2. In Line Tool
transported from production sites, increasingly farther and inac-
cessible, to consumption sites. Pipelines represent the cheapest
and safest way of transportation. Nowadays, more than half hy-
drocarbon pipes are 40 years old or more [9], and they are sub-
jected to situations that may injure, mainly their integrity but also
their durability. Despite all the precautions, pipelines can present
some flaws such as: sinking, deformations, installation accidents
when leaks are present (especially gas lines), internal corrosion
of aggressive fluids or external corrosion bind to weather condi-
tions, amongst others. Each of these flaws can inevitably bring
the production to a halt.
Thus, the in line inspection plays an important role in the
industrial sector since it supplies essential information to conduct
precautionary and corrective maintenance to hydrocarbon lines.
In this regard, devices called Pigs or HEL (In line Tool) have
been developed. These devices are introduced over one end of
the line and transported to the other, through a fluid, as seen in
Fig. 2 y Fig. 1 .
Additionally, these lines need periodic cleaning due to the
accumulating materials. In the case of gas pipes, condensation
accumulates which little by little begins to strangle the gas flow.
In oil flowing lines, residues such as paraffin can accumulate,
increasing the friction coefficient of the pipe, causing a higher
2 Copyright 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83087/ on 02/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
energetic cost in fluid transportation. Therefore, some devices
called HEL (In line tool) have been developed. These devices
are introduced over one end of the line and are transported to the
other end through a fluid. Analogous to a blowpipe, the HEL
moves along the pipe with the push gained from the fluid in the
posterior side (see figure 1). Certain kinds of HEL, called HDL
(Cleaning tool), are used to remove adhered material from the
pipe walls. Others are specially for removing condensation from
gas pipes. Plus, other tool types exist, which are named HDI (In-
spection tools) and allow to make certain measurements while
moving along the pipe line. This provides the opportunity to
know the structural state of the pipe (deformation, line sinking,
corrosion, leaks, amongst others). Of all devices, the hardest to
control are those that have a by-pass (to permit the fluid move-
ment). The by-pass lets the tool move slower that the fluid to
perform a better cleaning process.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Multiple factors make the behaviour of the HEL hard to pre-
dict inside gas lines, and oil and gas lines. The expansion and
compression processes of gas, causes quick changes in velocity
(the tool can change from 4 to 35 [m/s] according to results from
[5]), which becomes a problem due to the harms it can cause
to the pipe when the HEL impacts against the elbows and other
angle-changing accessories.
The desired state is the maintenance of the velocity of HEL
between 2-7 m/s for gas pipes and 1-5 m/s for oil pipes according
to [6]. This way, good material extraction is done, and damages
to the pipe are avoided. Besides, if the tool travels to high veloc-
ities it can be harmful to the pipe line ending in expensive fixes.
On the other hand, if the HEL travels at far too low velocities
compared to the flow velocity (less than 0.1 m/s), it can get stuck
inside the line, stopping the flow and generating losses. There are
many cases where the line is found several metres under ground
or in the bottom of the ocean, hence, accessing these places to
repair the line constitutes a problem due to the high costs.
Most of the calculations used in the Pig run area are made in
an empirical approach or based in experience. There are propos-
als that determine the fluid behaviour to predict the movement
of the cleaning tool in a one-dimensional fashion. Simulations
for Pigs in a non-permanent regime have been done to determine
their movement in gas lines by authors such as: Rahei [15] , Hos-
seinalipour [12] , [Esmaeilzadeh10], Azevedo [4]. All of these
are one-dimensional models and determine upstream and down-
stream pressures for Pig to estimate its movement. This is very
convenient since the HEL can be simulated before launching it
inside the line to determinate the adequate pressure and flow con-
ditions for the tool operation. Botros y Golshan explain in [2]
how most of the simulations are made in one dimension (1-D),
but simulations made in biphasic flow also exist (oil and gas for
example), however the description of fluid dynamics around the

FIGURE 3. Used Methodology
HEL is not found. This is why it is necessary to solve the problem
in two or three dimensions, but its complexity has prevented it.
Movement quantity conservation, mass conservation and energy
conservation equations need to be solved simultaneously, and if
the flow is biphasic the number of equations and unknown vari-
ables doubles. Hence, the following question arises: How can
the behaviour of the flow around HEL can be known in two and
three dimensions? The answer to this question opens the way to
the possibility to study the flow behaviour, however it is neces-
sary to also determine how the pressure and flow line conditions
affect the behaviour of such flow around the tool?. Additionally,
how does the HEL design affect the fluid that moves around it?
CFD SIMULATION
In this investigation the following methodology was em-
ployed (Fig. 3) to achieve the simulation
Domain
The domain is a bi-dimensional representation of a 10[cm]
wide, 2.5 [m] long and 1 [mm] thick pipe. Three kinds of tools
were used: Polly Pig, Ball Pig and Mandrel Pig as shown in Fig.
5 of 9.75 [cm] in diameter each, located 0.5 [m] from the end of
the pipe 4 .
Meshing
The meshes used are structured and were constructed in
ICEM Ansys 14.
3 Copyright 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83087/ on 02/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
FIGURE 4. Three Simulated Domains
FIGURE 5. Meshes for Three kinds of Pigs Simulated
Moving Mesh Methodology
In a non-permanent regime simulation, the Pig moves along
the pipe depending on the flow push that the fluid provides. In
our case, we will assume a constant velocity to simplify the prob-
lem. A non-permanent regime simulation requires that the mesh
nodes follow the movement of the tool, since otherwise a per-
manent regime simulation would be taking place. In each time
point the tool moves, the node zone near it moves at a constant
velocity and the rest of the nodes move proportionally according
to their location as it can be observed in figure 6. Nonetheless,
the nodes close to the pipe entry or exit will have an almost null
movement. This causes the nodes of the mesh behind the tool to
separate between them, and the nodes in front of the mess to join
as it can be observed in the figure.
A test program was made in MATLAB to read the locations
of the nodes from the initial mesh file, to further make all the
successive movements. These movements were stored in files
corresponding to each time point. Routines in Fortran 95 were
used to read these files during the simulation and therefore update
the position of the nodes of the mesh in the simulator.
 TABLE 2. GCI Meshes
Mesh Node number Spatial discretion
1 243k 1.25E-10
2 130k 2.30E-10
3 60k 5.00E-10

FIGURE 6. Size of the Node Movement in the Mesh for Several Time
Points TABLE 3. GCI for different values in the domain
Parameters GCI [%] 2s GCI [%] 3s GCI [%] 3,5s
Flow velocity at 1.0[m] 0.040 0.210 0.140
TABLE 1. Simulation Configuration
Flow velocity at 1.5[m] 0.130 0.620 0.000
Fluid Water a 25 C
Flow velocity at 2.0[m] 0.260 0.009 0.000
Spatial scheme High-resolution Entry pressure 0.009 0.000 0.006
Temporal scheme 2nd delayed order Pressure behind the Pig 0.000 0.000 0.002

Turbulence model k-e Pressure in front of the Pig 0.009 0.002 0.002
Strength over the Pig 1.000 0.000 0.006
Residual maximum 10-4
Mesh type Structured mesh
take. The same edge conditions are used.
BC Entry Velocity 0.4 m/s
BC Exit (open) Static Pressure 150 kPa Transient Simulation
BC Walls Smooth, without movement. Assuming the Pig moves at the same velocity as the flow
0.4[m/s] and taking a fixed total time of 3.5[s] a total move-
ment of 1.4[m] is obtained inside the pipe. Using a time point
Ruling Equations of 0.0125[s] we have a corresponding movement of 5[mm], thus,
The program ANSYS CFX was used to resolve the equa- this will be the movement that the Pig will have each time point.
tions that rule the fluid such as the mass conservation (ver Eq. 1)
and movement quantity conservation (ver Eq. 2 ) equations in a
Mesh verification through the GCI method
non-permanent regime.The idea was to simulate the behaviour of
The results for three meshes in the GCI comparison will be
the fluid while the tool moves at a constant speed along the line.
presented, as it can be observed in table 2. It can be seen from
The constant velocity assumed was 0.4 m/s for the tool inside a
table Tab. 3 how the values lower than 1% in GCI indicate that
pipe that transports water.
the outcomes are independent from their meshes.

r ~ ~ Time Point Verification (time-step)

+ rV = 0 (1) Different time points were used to determine the indepen-
t
D~V ~ dence of the results. In the figure 7 a pressure drop is observed
r + p rg ~ ti j = 0 (2) for different time points in different times of the simulation. It
Dt
can be observed how after the 0.8[s] the results are independent
from the time point chosen. This leads to use a time point of
Simulation Parameters
0.0125[s]
In the next table Tab. 1 the configuration used for the simu-
lations is showed. The simulation was done in a non-permanent
regime and it has a duration of 3.5[s] since the tool begins at
RESULTS
0.5[m] from the entry of the line until it reaches 2[m].
The pressure was determined along the bullet-shaped tool.
The small pressure variation can be seen in figure 8. However,
Inicial Static Simulation from these results strength values over the tool can be attained
A permanent regime simulation needed to be done to define and, therefore, the areas that suffer a highest effort can be deter-
the initial solution that the non-permanent regime simulation will mined.

4 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83087/ on 02/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo


FIGURE 7. Pressure drop in the pipe for different time points at 0.6
[s], 0.8[s] y 1[s]
FIGURE 8. Pressure around the tool (Acomodar escala del color)
For the Mandril-type Pig, a simulation in permanent regime
was done and pressure differences were seen between the Pig
faces Fig 9. Nonetheless, this pressure difference is disolved dur-
ing the constant movement of the Pig Fig 10.
The permanent regime simulations show bigger differences
in pressure for the ball-type tool Fig. 11 than the non-permanent
regime simulations, were the tools move along the line. These
results suggest that at constant velocities the tool can suffer less
effort, against when velocity changes occur as in the beginning.
In the next figure Fig 13 the pressure drop for each Pig is
5 Copyright 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83087/ on 02/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
FIGURE 9. Pressure profile in the Mandril-type Pig 0[s] (Acmodar
escala del color)
FIGURE 10. Pressure profile in the Mandril-type Pig at different time
points (Acomodar escala del color)
shown. It can be observed how the mandril type generate a pres-
sure drop lower than the ball and bullet types. Even though the
mandril Pig generates a lower pressure drop, it moves at a lower
velocity than the other two types of Pig. This is because of a
smallest surface to recibe the push given by the flow.
The velocity of the flow in the interstice between the Pig and
the pipe was also studied, and it can be seen how the velocity is
lower for the mandril-type tool since the most part of the fluid
escapes throughout the whole in the middle of the tool.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A 2D simulation that managed to represent the CFD while
the tool moves along the line, was achieved. This will allow to
study the reasons for the eventual stuck of the Pigs inside the
 FIGURE 13. Pressure drop in the pipe at 2 [s], 3[s] y 3.5[s]

FIGURE 11. Pressure profile in the Ball-type Pig 0[s]

FIGURE 14. Velocity profile in the interstice at 3[s]

FIGURE 12. Pressure profile in the Ball-type Pig at different time

points (Acomodar escala del color)
hydrocarbon pipes. It can be observed that the Pig takes less
effort due to the pressure when it slides at a constant velocity.
Velocity changes in the Pig generate additional efforts because of
the pressure. It is recommended that simulations with a bi-phasic
flow are done, in order to study the performance of the tool. It
is recommended that Pig simulations are done going through the
elbows and pipe angles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks to PETROBRAS for giving me the opportunity to
work under the scholarship program, which allowed me to de-
velop this Master/s study. To my great friends Abraham and
Diana who have taught me much. Special thanks to my tutor for
all the training received.
REFERENCES
[1] Sainson, S., 2007. Inspection en ligne des pipelines, 2 ed.
Editions TEC & DOC., Marzo.
[2] Tiratsoo, J. N. H., 1992. Pipeline pigging technology, 2 ed.

6 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83087/ on 02/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Gulf Professional Publishing an imprint of Butterworth- [21] Deng, T., Gong, J., Li, X., Zhang, Y., Yao, Y., and Quan,
Heinemann. Q., 2012. A dynamic simulation study of overpressure
[3] Hosseinalipour, S. M., Khalili, A. Z., and Salimi, A., for pigging process. In 2012 9th International Pipeline
2007. Numerical simulation of pig motion through gas Conference.
pipelines. 16th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference.
[4] Nguyeo, T. T., Kim, S. B., Yoo, H. R., and Rho, Y. W.,
2001. Modeling and simulation for pig with bypass flow
control in natural gas pipeline. KSME International Jour-
nal, 15(9), p. 1302.
[5] RIVERA, E. E. F., 2006. Estudio numerico de la corrida
de diablos para el mantenimiento de la produccion en oleo-
ductos. Tesis, Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico, Agosto.
[6] Azevedo, L. F. A., Braga, A. M. B., Nieckele, A. O., Nac-
cache, M. F., and Gomes, M. G. F. M., 1996. Sim-
ple hydrodynamic models for the prediction of pig motion
in pipelines. Offshore Technology Conference Houston,
Mayo.
[7] Botros, K. K., and Golshan, H., 2009. Dynamics of pig
motion in gas pipelines. AGA Operations Conference &
Biennial Exhibition, Mayo.
[8] Donoghue, O., 2008. Design and control of pig opera-
tions through pipelines. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, July, pp. 102110.
[9] Donoghue, O. Pigging as a flow assurance solution avoid-
ing slug catcher overflow. Pipeline Research Limited.
[10] Esmaeilzadeh, F., Mowla, and Asemani, M. Modeling
of pig operations in natural gas and liquid pipeline. SPE
102049.
[11] Rahei, F., 2006. Optimizing the active speed control
unit for in-line inspection tools in gas. 6th International
Pipeline Conference, 9.
[12] Rojas, L., and Amon, C., 2002. Notas de Flujo y Transporte
Turbulento, 1ra ed. Venezuela.
[13] Ferziger, J., and Peric, M., 2002. Computational Methods
for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag, Germany.
[14] Anderson, J., and Peric, M., 1995. Computational Fluid
Dynamics, 1th ed. McGraw-Hill, Unaited States.
[15] The European Research Community on Flow Turbu-
lence and Combustion, 2000. Best Practice Guidelines,
1st ed. ERCOFTAC.
[16] ANSYS Inc. ANSYS CFX Guide. ANSYS Inc.
[17] Celik, I. B., 2008. Procedure for estimation and report-
ing of discretization error in cfd applications. Journal of
Fluids Engineering, 130, 7.
[18] Eaton, J. W., 2002. GNU Octave Manual. Network Theory
Limited.
[19] Kernighan, B. W., and Ritchie, D. M., 1993. The program-
ing language C, 2 ed. Prentice Hall Software Series.
[20] Borregales, M., 2014. CFD ANALYSIS OF PHE-
NOMENA ATTRIBUTED TO PIGGING RUN IN A
PIPELINE. Masters thesis, Simon Bolvar University.

7 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83087/ on 02/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo