Optimisation of Pigging Infrastructure in Design
Optimisation of Pigging Infrastructure in Design
Optimisation of Pigging Infrastructure in Design
A dissertation submitted by
Abstract
The principle aim of the research was to create a standard, complete with a supporting estimating
tool, which will assist in optimising the design of pigging infrastructure in future pipeline
projects undertaken by SunWater.
The study involved research into current pigging practices and infrastructure arrangements.
Pipelines considered during this research included the majority of pipelines owned by SunWater,
as well as several pipelines external to the company. This research involved the operators of the
previously mentioned pipelines.
Established during this research were a number of differing levels of infrastructure. The
associated costs of these infrastructure levels, both capital and operational, were then analysed.
The analysis sought to determine the total cost of the asset over its design life. From this analysis
conclusions were drawn as to when a particular level of infrastructure could justifiably be
incorporated into a particular pipeline design.
The physical output of the research included general arrangement drawings for the different
infrastructure layouts. A document was then prepared linking those arrangements to their
associated costs and allowing these outputs to be included in SunWaters design standards.
Finally an estimating tool was developed to supplement the standard, for use in the conceptual
and/or preliminary design stages of a pipeline project.
The results of this study will help ensure SunWater makes a justified capital investment in
pigging infrastructure on future pipeline designs. It will also aid in streamlining the conceptual
and/or preliminary design process of pigging infrastructure.
Limitations of Use
The Council of the University of Southern Queensland, its Faculty of Engineering and
Surveying, and the staff of the University of Southern Queensland, do not accept any
responsibility for the truth, accuracy or completeness of material contained within or associated
with this dissertation.
Persons using all or any part of this material do so at their own risk, and not at the risk of the
Council of the University of Southern Queensland, its Faculty of Engineering and Surveying or
the staff of the University of Southern Queensland.
This dissertation reports an educational exercise and has no purpose or validity beyond this
exercise. The sole purpose of the course pair entitled Research Project is to contribute to the
overall education within the students chosen degree program. This document, the associated
hardware, software, drawings, and other material set out in the associated appendices should not
be used for any other purpose: if they are so used, it is entirely at the risk of the user.
Certification
I certifu that the ideas, designs and experimental work, results, analyses and conclusions set out
in this dissertation are entirely my own effort, except where otherwise indicated and
acknowledged.
I further certifu that the work is original and has not been previously submitted for assessment in
Date
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out under the principal supervision of Dr Malcolm Gillies of the
University of Southern Queensland and Mr Dan Coutts of SunWater. Thanks and appreciation is
due to both.
Appreciation is also due to the operations and maintenance staff within SunWater who assisted
with this project. These people were vital to the undertaking of this research.
Finally and most importantly great appreciation is due to my friends and family, in particular my
wife, for the support they have shown throughout not only this research project, but my whole
academic career.
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A Specification
APPENDIX B Blank Questionnaire
APPENDIX C Completed Questionnaires
APPENDIX D Level One Infrastructure Standard Arrangement Drawing
APPENDIX E Level Two Infrastructure Standard Arrangement Drawing
APPENDIX F Level Three Infrastructure Standard Arrangement Drawing
APPENDIX G Thrust Calculation Spreadsheet
APPENDIX H Project Risk Assessment, WMS & Safe Design Review
APPENDIX I Option Analysis
APPENDIX J Raw Analysis Model
APPENDIX K Level One PN20 Model
APPENDIX L Level Two PN20 Model
APPENDIX M Level Three PN20 Model
APPENDIX N Level One PN35 Model
APPENDIX O Level Two PN35 Model
APPENDIX P Level Three PN35 Model
APPENDIX Q Pigging Infrastructure Standard
APPENDIX R Pigging Infrastructure Estimating Tool
Abbreviations
Glossary
Intelligent Pig a pig that incorporates various technologies i.e. GPS for tracking etc.
Rubber Ring Jointed Pipe pipe joined together via a socket and spigot arrangement, sealed by a
rubber ring.
This study encompasses the design of pigging infrastructure used in the water industry.
It looks into the varying pipe work arrangements that are used in current practice. This
includes the varying operational procedures associated with each arrangement.
The main focus of the study is to determine the costs associated with the varying
infrastructure arrangements and operational procedures. Taken into account are both
capital investment and operational costs. The purpose of the study is to allow some level
of financial justification for the inclusion of the infrastructure in a pipeline design.
Justification is required at the conceptual and/or preliminary design stage of a pipeline
project.
1.2 Introduction
19 dams;
63 weirs and barrages;
80 major pumping stations;
over 2500km of open channel and pipeline.
SunWaters internal design and drafting resources are located in two design centres.
Head office is situated in Brisbane and a regional design office is situated in Ayr, North
Queensland. These resources undertake the majority of the design and drafting
requirements of the company.
Pipeline pigging is the process by which the internal surface of a pipeline is freed from
deposits or growth. Pipeline pigging is also referred to as pipeline cleaning or
swabbing. For the purpose of this study it will be referred to as pipeline pigging. This
process is used in pipelines conveying a wide variety of substances. Those substances
include but are not limited to gas, petroleum, oil and water. However, this research only
focuses on those pipelines that convey water.
Very few sources of water are free from impurities. It is these impurities in the water
that promote the growth of algae, moss and other forms of biofilm. This biofilm can
form on any surface via which water is conveyed, whether it be the rocks in a river, the
bed of a channel or, as far as this research is concerned, the internal walls of a pipeline.
The amount and rate of growth of biofilm that occurs on the internal walls of a pipeline
is dependent on a number of factors, including but not limited to:
In any case, over time the biofilm on the internal walls will build up. The build up of
biofilm on the internal walls of the pipeline increases the friction experienced by the
water as it travels through the pipeline. An increase in the amount of friction
experienced by the flowing water will have a consequential effect on the operating
efficiency of the pipeline.
system. However, for the purposes of this research the only efficiency that is of concern
is that of the pumps.
Pumps are selected as part of a pipeline design. They are selected so that they will
operate at, or close to, their peak efficiency under normal operating conditions. As the
pumps move away from their peak operating efficiency, they begin to work harder.
As the pumps begin to work harder, the power consumption of the pumps on a pipeline
will increase. Resulting from this increase in power consumption is an increase in
power costs. It is at this point, when the pumping costs of a pipeline begin to
significantly increase, that the pipeline requires pigging. There are other factors that
onset the requirement for pigging i.e. water delivery contract stipulations. However, for
the purpose of this project these factors are not considered.
The pigging operation aims to remove the build up of biofilm from the internal walls of
a pipeline. It is through the removal of the biofilm that the pipeline and hence the pumps
are restored to their peak operating efficiency.
In recent times given the extended drought in most parts of Queensland and the boom in
mining activities over the last ten years, SunWater has designed, constructed and now
operates numerous major pipelines.
The majority of these pipelines are situated in the Central Queensland Bowen Basin
(Figure 1.1). These pipelines range in length from 40 km to 220 km and in diameter
from 450 mm to 750 mm. They also vary in material, including welded polyethylene,
welded and rubber ring jointed mild steel and rubber ring jointed ductile iron.
The design requirement for each of these pipelines varies, as do the infrastructure
requirements. All of the pipelines incorporate smaller infrastructure such as air valves,
scour outlets and consumer off-takes. Many of them also provide infrastructure for
metering, isolation and pumping, as well as the infrastructure to assist in the pigging
process i.e. pig insertion and removal structures.
Both above ground and below ground (in a pit) insertion and removal structure designs
have been used within the water industry. As well as varying in location (above and
below ground) the pipe work arrangements have a number of variations, depending on
the pipeline in question. With this varying infrastructure comes varying capital
investment. Subsequent to construction, the frequency of use of the infrastructure
provided for the pigging process will also vary.
The graph in Figure 1.2 provides a comparison between the age and pigging frequency
for a number of SunWater designed, owned and operated pipelines. The red columns
represent the age (in years) of each pipeline and the purple columns represent the
frequency (in the number of times per year) that each pipeline is pigged.
The graph in Figure 1.3 is based on the same SunWater designed, owned and operated
pipelines as that in Figure 1.2. The green columns represent the capital investment (in
millions of dollars) associated with the infrastructure provided for the pigging process
for each pipeline.
To justify the pigging infrastructure provided for the pigging process in future pipeline
designs two investigations need to be undertaken. The results of the two investigations
are to be used during future pipeline designs, providing some level of justification for
that design:
1 Investigate the benefits derived from the pigging process to determine, on a pipeline
by pipeline basis, if and when the process itself and hence the infrastructure should
be considered in design.
2 Investigate differing levels of pigging infrastructure and relate those different levels
of infrastructure to the benefits derived from the pigging process.
The principle aim of this research is to create a standard, complete with a supporting
estimating tool that will assist in optimising the design of pigging infrastructure in
future pipeline projects undertaken by SunWater.
There are nine objectives associated with this aim (as per the specification, Appendix
A):
By meeting each of these objectives, a suitable standard can be created that will help
justify SunWaters capital investment in pigging infrastructure for future pipeline
projects.
1.5 Summary
SunWaters business of bulk water supply requires the design, construction and
operation of pipelines. Part of that design, construction and operation involves the
pigging process and its associated infrastructure. The pigging process is one that can
assist in ensuring pipelines are running at their peak efficiency. However, it is also a
process that can draw large capital investments in infrastructure.
To date, SunWaters current practice for the design of pigging infrastructure does not
consider or relate the capital investment in the infrastructure to the benefits derived
from the process itself. It is therefore the aim of this study to assist in optimisation the
design of pigging infrastructure by relating it to the financial benefits of the pigging
process.
At a basic level, pipeline pigging is a fairly simple process. The water supply into the
pipeline is shut off and all associated electrical and/or mechanical equipment are
isolated. The isolation process is to prevent the water supply into the pipeline from
resuming while the pig (Section 2.3) is being inserted into the pipeline. Once the water
supply is isolated, the pig is inserted into the pipeline.
Once the pig has been inserted into the pipeline, the line is filled. The isolation is then
lifted and the water supply re-started. The hydraulic pressure behind the pig pushes it
through the pipeline and the rate at which the pig travels will vary depending on its
type and size. However, the main driver behind the pigs speed is the flow rate within
the system.
The pig will usually travel no quicker than walking speed, or approximately 1.5 m/s.
However the most common speed for a pig travelling through a pipeline is 0.5 m/s.
This ensures a thorough clean is achieved. The speed of a pig can be increased by
opening scour outlets ahead of the pigs position in the pipeline and closing the ones
behind it. Similarly, the pigs speed can be reduced by opening scour outlets behind
the pigs position in the pipeline and closing the ones ahead of it.
As the pig travels through the pipeline, its extremities are constantly in contact with
the internal walls of the pipeline. The contact between the pig and the internal walls is
essentially what removes the biofilm from the internal walls of the pipeline (Figure 2.1).
The pig is tracked through the pipeline, again using the scour outlets. The time it takes
for the pig to travel from one scour outlet to the next along the pipeline is
approximated using the formula:
The scour outlet ahead of the pig is opened just before it is due to arrive. As the pig
approaches the water flowing out of the scour outlet becomes dirty. This indicates the
pig is nearing the scour. As the pig passes the scour there is a short but noticeable
pause in the flow of water out of the scour outlet. Shortly after, the water runs clear
again. This indicates the pig has passed. There is no set requirement on the spacing of
scours for this purpose.
The pig will continue through the pipeline until it eventually reaches the point where it
is to be retrieved. This point can either be the end of the pipeline or some intermediate
point along it. The location of the retrieval point will depend on the overall length of the
pipeline being pigged. Generally the distance between pig insertion and removal
points will be no greater than 20-25 km.
If a pipeline is longer than 20-25 km it will generally be pigged in sections. A new pig
will be used for each section of the pipeline. This is due to the wear experienced by the
pig as a result of the rubbing effect. At the retrieval point, pushed out ahead of the
pig will be the remaining dirty water. This dirty water is full of the biofilm the pig
has removed from the internal walls of the pipeline. The amount of water pushed out
ahead of the pig is minimised by opening scours along the pipeline in front of the
pig.
An insertion structure is provided at the start of a pipeline or the start of each section of
a pipeline. A removal structure is provided at the end of a pipeline or the end of each
section of a pipeline. Where the pipeline is broken up into sections for pigging, in most
instances the intermediate insertion and removal structures will be one and the same.
Figure 2.2 Swab Structure on the Burdekin Moranbah Pipeline (SunWater 2005)
There are many variations in the infrastructure provided for the insertion and removal of
the pig into and out of a pipeline. The infrastructure can be provided above ground, as
in Figure 2.2. It can also be provided below ground, usually in a pit. The pipe work and
valving arrangement will also vary, depending on the design characteristics of the
pipeline. Operational procedures for the pigging process will also vary based on the
type of infrastructure provided.
Pig is the term given to the object that actually does the cleaning within the pipeline.
Pigs are available in many forms (Knapp Polly Pig Inc 2001):
In the water industry, the most common forms of pig used are the Urethane Foam and
Metal Mandrel pig. Both types of pig have their advantages and disadvantages.
The type of pig used will depend on the pipeline that is to be pigged. There are a
number of pipeline related factors that will determine the most appropriate pig. Some of
those factors include:
The Urethane Foam Pig (Figure 2.3) as its name suggests, has a urethane foam body.
The external coating varies based on the application, but is generally a urethane
elastomer. These pigs have a bullet shape, which assists with launching the pig and in
traversing pipelines that change diameter. Urethane Foam Pigs are, in most cases, a
throw away item. They are used to pig a pipeline, or in some cases a section of pipeline,
only once.
Figure 2.3 Urethane Foam Pig (Knapp Polly Pig Inc 2001)
The Metal Mandrel (Figure 2.4) pig consists of a metal body, with replaceable urethane
discs. These pigs are built such that the urethane discs can be unbolted and replaced as
necessary (usually before each pigging operation). Metal Mandrel pigs are not suited to
pipelines that are rubber ring jointed as it has the potential to dislodge the joints as it
passes.
Figure 2.4 Metal Mandrel Pig (Knapp Polly Pig Inc 2001)
There are two factors that determine the size of a pig. The first is the internal diameter
of the pipeline to be pigged. The pig needs to be larger in external diameter than the
internal diameter of the pipeline. This allows the pig to constantly be in 360 degree
contact with the internal wall of the pipeline. The relative size of the pig compared to
the pipe diameter is dependent on the type of pig being used.
The second factor in determining the size of a pig is the configuration of bends on the
pipeline being pigged. The length of the pig will vary depending on the acuteness of the
bends in the pipeline. A short pig will be used on a pipeline consisting of tight bends.
As the tightness of the bends on a pipeline reduces the pig length can increase.
The following literature review looks at past articles that have been written relating to
the process of pipeline pigging. In particular, the review focuses on the varying
arrangements of pigging infrastructure and the theories behind their design. The articles
considered cover a range of industries, not just the water industry.
The original method for launching and receiving pigs in a pipeline was via manual
handling. This involved physically inserting the pig into the pipeline before it could be
launched. Similarly, it involved manually removing the pig from the pipeline once it
had been received. There are a number of aspects to be considered in the design of
pigging infrastructure that will require manual launching and/or receiving of the pig.
Figure 3.1 gives an example of a manually operated pig launcher.
To insert a pig into a pipeline, the pipeline itself has to be opened in some way. The
opening in the pipeline needs to be large enough to be able to accommodate the
particular pig to be inserted. This is done via a localised enlargement in the pipeline
(Section 3.1.2).
Fisher (1998) discusses quick opening closures and the various forms they are available
in. Two of the forms discussed are the threaded or screwed type, and yoke type. Fisher
(1998) also discusses the safety aspects of these quick opening closures and the need for
them to have pressure warning devices fitted. This allows the pressure inside the pig
chamber to be equalised before it is opened.
Both Fisher (1998) and Warriner (2008) offer a number of varying methods for opening
a pipeline. However, their over arching argument is towards quick opening closures,
relating it to ease of access for operators. This is consistent with the general perception
of the industry that money can be saved by spending less time on operation. However,
this doesnt take into consideration the capital investment. While money is being saved
in operation, capital costs are potentially increasing. Some kind of justification should
correlate capital investment and operational savings.
Neither Fisher (1998) nor Warriner (2008) consider a spool piece for pig insertion. A
spool piece is an easily removable section of pipe, held in place during normal operation
via some form of coupling. During the pigging operation the entire spool piece is
removed for pig insertion. This method of pig insertion is fairly common practice within
the water industry in Queensland.
Quarini and Shire (2007) discuss the complexity that pigging infrastructure can add to a
pipeline design. In doing so, they offer an alternative; an innovative solution. Quarini
and Shire (2007) mention a ball valve designed with a side cavity to insert and/or
remove a pig.
Quarini and Shire (2007) add another dimension to the aspect of manual pig launching
and receiving. They do this by considering specially designed valves to insert or remove
pigs from a pipeline. This eliminates the need for any form of opening as such.
However, it would not remove the need for an enlargement in the pipeline.
Quarini and Shire (2007) describe how their solution reduces the complexity of the
pipeline, which again relates back to ease of operator use. The same issue arises in that
capital costs are being increased to reduce operational costs. Again, justification is
required in this situation to correlate between capital investment and operational
savings.
Another limiting factor when using this type of manual insertion would be the diameter
of the pipeline. The article by Quarini and Shire (2007) does not describe the diameters
up to which this type of valve is available. Previous experience would suggest that a
valve of this type would not be fabricated for larger diameter pipelines i.e. 500mm
diameters and above.
The whole pigging process relies on the pig being in constant 360 degree contact with
the internal wall of the pipeline. To achieve this, pigs are designed to have an outside
diameter slightly larger than the internal diameter of the pipeline. Therefore, as
previously stated, for a pig to be inserted into a pipeline there usually needs to be an
enlargement in the pipeline.
There are three design considerations for this enlargement in the pipeline. They are:
for a main line diameter of 250 mm or less, an increase of one pipe size or a
minimum of 50 mm;
for a main line diameter between 300 mm and 600 mm, an increase of two pipe
sizes or a minimum of 100 mm;
for a main line diameter of 750 mm or larger, an increase of three pipe sizes or a
minimum of 150 mm.
Quarini and Shire (2007) describe how the pig is inserted into a chamber that is slightly
bigger in diameter than that of the main pipeline.
Quarini and Shire (2007), Fisher (1998) and Warriner (2008) all acknowledge that there
is a requirement for an enlarged section of pipe within pig launching and receiving
infrastructure. The enlargement discussed is an allowance for insertion/launching or
receiving/removal of the pig as part of the pigging process. However, each article
presents different opinions on the size of that enlargement.
Quarini and Shire (2007) do not give exact, or in fact any, dimensions as to the size of
the enlargement. They do little more than acknowledge the fact that it is required.
There are conflicting opinions between the articles written by Fisher (1998) and
Warriner (2008). Warriner (2008) suggests that the enlargement should be uniform
regardless of the main pipeline diameter. He bases the size of the enlargement purely on
the type of pig to be used. Further to that, his basis only considers two broad types of
pig, the conventional pig or an intelligent pig. The main pipeline size is not considered
by Warriner (2008).
Fisher (1998), on the other hand, suggests that the enlargement should be relative to the
main pipeline diameter. He groups various main pipeline diameters into three categories
and then describes the enlargement pertaining to that category of main pipeline
diameters. The enlargement he suggests is based on a certain number of pipe sizes
larger than that of the main pipeline. Unlike Warriner (2008), Fisher (1998) does not
consider the type of pig to be used in the pigging process as a factor in determining the
extent of the enlargement.
Although each author bases size of the enlargement on completely different factors, the
actual enlargements they suggest arent that dissimilar. Fisher (1998) uses an
enlargement of between 50 mm and 150 mm and Warriner (2008) uses and enlargement
of between 50 mm and 100 mm.
Even though the suggestions of both articles end up in the same region, the size of
enlarged section of an insertion and/or removal structure should be based on a
collaboration of a number of factors. Among those factors are:
Warriner (2008) lists a number of criteria that the length of the enlargement should be
based on:
Warriner (2008) then goes on to say the length of enlarged pipe in the launcher is
different to that of the receiver. The two lengths discussed being twice the pig length
and three and a half times the pig length respectively.
Fisher (1998) describes how the enlarged section of a pig launcher/receiver should be
one and a half times the length of the longest pig expected to be used.
Both authors, Warriner (2008) and Fisher (1998), perceive that the main factor in
determining the length of the pipeline enlargement is the type of pig. Although Warriner
(2008) does list a number of contributing factors, his final word highlights the type of
pig to be used.
There is quite a large difference, however, in the ratio of pig length to enlargement
length between the two articles. Warriner (2008) specifies a length almost three times
that of Fisher (1998).
Generally, both authors align with practice today in adopting the type of pigs to be used
as the major determining factor in the length of enlargement required. However,
Fishers (1998) ratio of pig length to enlargement length would seem to align closer
with current practices in the water industry in Queensland. Having said that, there are a
number of factors, other than the type of pig to be used, that will affect the enlargement
length. Warriner (2008) has covered the extent of these factors quite well in his article.
Quarini and Shire (2007) simply state that the transition from the main pipeline
diameter to the enlarged diameter should be connected to the line at a shallow angle by
a flared pipe (Quarini & Shire 2007).
Warriner (2008) describes how the transition to and/or from the enlarged pipe can be
either an eccentric or concentric taper. Elaborating on this, Warriner (2008) specifies the
use of eccentric tapers on horizontal launchers. Concentric tapers are then to be used on
horizontal receivers and all vertical systems.
Fisher (1998) discusses how an eccentric taper should be used to reduce from the
enlarged section of pipe to the main pipeline diameter. The reason is to ensure a good
seal when the pig is pushed into the line as well as ensuring the pig will launch.
Again, Quarini and Shire (2007) do not elaborate any more on the matter other than to
say there is a reduction to the main pipeline diameter after the enlarged section of pipe.
Warriner (2008) and Fisher (1998) give semi-conflicting theories. They both make use
of a taper to reduce from the enlarged section of pipe to the main pipeline diameter. The
conflict is in the type of taper being used. Where Warriner (2008) specifies different
tapers for different applications, Fisher (1998) simply specifies the same taper to be
used in all cases.
The consensus from previous experience has current practice lying with Fishers (2008)
theory, especially within the water industry in Queensland. Although like the other parts
of the enlargement pipe work, it can vary from case to case for different reasons.
To be able to open the pipeline and insert a pig into the enlargement, the product flow
has to be isolated. Once the pig has been inserted into the pipeline it then needs to be
launched. These aspects of the pigging process are undertaken using some form of
valve. The main valves associated with pigging infrastructure are:
isolation valves;
drain valves;
bypass valves.
The main line valve should always be a full port, through-conduit valve. The bypass or
kicker valve can be a reduced port valve. The line bringing the product into the main
line can be a reduced port valve. The kicker or bypass line will be 1/4 to 1/3 of the
pipeline diameter. The drain and vent connection size will vary depending on
application (Fisher 1998)
Warriner (2008) only briefly speaks on valves. The article specifies a drain valve size of
50 mm or greater for pigging infrastructure up to 350 mm in diameter. Pigging
infrastructure greater in diameter than 350 mm is to have a drain valve size of 100 mm.
Warriner (2008) does not talk about the size or type of valves used in pigging
infrastructure. He implies that the drain valve size will vary according to the particular
situation it is to be used in, which agrees with what Fisher (1998) says.
Fisher (1998) goes into more detail about all three types of valves. The main line valve
or isolation valve he describes is similar to a gate valve which is commonly used in
practice today. Fishers (1998) one third sizing for a bypass valve is closer to what is
used in the water industry today.
Finally, there are other innovations in valving with the pigging industry. As previously
stated, Quarini and Shire (2007) discuss the development of a special ball valve. The
valve incorporates a cavity in the side to allow for the pig to be launched and/or
received. This would effectively reduce the number of valves, as discussed above,
required for the pigging process.
As technology improves new methods for launching and receiving pigs into a pipeline
are being developed. A large development in the pigging industry was the incorporation
Figure 3.2 Block Diagram of SPL with Surface Kicker Line (Kozel 1997)
Kozel (1997) describes the main purpose or reason for using a sub-sea pig launcher
(SPL). That purpose being to launch or receive pigs in a sub-sea pipeline that has no
access on the surface.
Due to the depths of some sub-sea pipelines, some being greater than 100 metres below
sea level, the launching or receiving of pigs via surface launchers is not possible. Sub-
sea pig launchers are designed to allow for retrofitting to existing sub-sea pipelines.
According to Kozel (1997) the functions of an SPL are the same as those of the
infrastructure used for pigging on the surface. The main difference between the two is in
their implementation.
The processes used in surface launching are also required in sub-sea launching. Such
processes include:
Quarini and Shire (2007) describe a recent development in automated pig launching
systems for pipelines that are regularly pigged. A pig launcher has been developed that
will launch five pigs without manual intervention.
Like their other references to infrastructure provided for the pigging process, Quarini
and Shire (2007) merely acknowledge the fact that automatic launchers are available.
They do however imply one important fact, in that the multiple pig launchers are for
pipelines requiring frequent pigging. These types of launchers would not be economical
on pipelines that are only occasionally pigged.
The article by Warriner (2008) also touches on automatic pig launchers. His paper
describes a number of systems available, including:
In describing the valve type multiple pig launcher, Warriner (2008) discusses how the
infrastructure incorporates a set of valves for launching each pig in the system. This
effectively allows the pressure from the main line to launch each pig individually as it is
needed.
In describing the vertical multiple pig launcher, Warriner (2008) discusses the addition
of launch pins, hydraulically operated, to what otherwise would be standard
infrastructure. Each launch pin holds one pig in place ready to be launched.
In describing the AMPL, Warriner (2008) discusses the use of cassettes. A number of
pigs are preloaded into a specially designed or fitted cassette, which is then loaded into
the pigging infrastructure.
Again, each of these systems has their place. There is no indication within the article of
the diameter range that these launchers can be adapted to. They would only be
economical in situations where the frequency of pigging was high. In the majority of
water pipeline instances the cost of these automated launchers could not be justified.
Mainly due to the infrequent intervals with which water pipelines are pigged.
Siphon pipelines form part of open channels or canals. The pigging of these follows the
same principle, but is executed differently.
Steinke and Drain (2004) describe how a dragline or crane is used to launch and/or
retrieve a pig into a canal. The machinery places the pig in the canal upstream of the
siphon and releases it. Similarly, another piece of machinery retrieves the pig once it
exits the siphon.
No permanent pig launching or receiving devices are incorporated into these canals.
Hence, as Steinke and Drain (2004) describe, the process is as simple as a piece of
machinery placing the pig into or retrieving the pig from the product flow in the canal.
3.4 Summary
There are many different perspectives when it comes to pigging infrastructure. With
manual launching, the arrangement or process that is gone through is basically the same
in most cases. It is the pipe work and valving arrangements provided that can and do
vary.
There are also a number of different technologies available for the automatic launching
and receiving of pigs. Although most automated systems are designed for sub-sea, gas
or oil pipeline applications. Finally, in the case of canals, launching and/or retrieving
pigs can simply involve a piece of machinery.
The first part of the research focuses on the qualitative side of the problem (Figure 4.1).
The figure shows the contributing factors to this side of the problem. Each of these
factors had to be investigated before the quantitative side of the problem could be
considered. The investigation involved looking into current pigging practices that are in
use today. The purpose of the investigation was to set out a number of differing levels
of pigging infrastructure. These differing levels of infrastructure would form the base
for the remainder of the research.
The investigation was undertaken in four stages, each stage being dependant on the last.
The four stages are listed below and discussed in the following sections:
existing arrangements;
questionnaire development;
operator survey;
standard arrangement development.
This research involved obtaining a number of drawings for each pipeline that contained
some form of pigging infrastructure. The drawings sought included:
Not all of these drawings were available for every pipeline researched. The majority
only had three to four of these drawings available. Where possible, the As Constructed
versions of the drawings were obtained.
Locating these drawings for all pipelines owned and operated by SunWater was a
lengthy but simple process. Within SunWater there is a utility that contains all drawings
produced by SunWater. This utility is called the Drawing Information System (DIS).
The utility is an intranet based system that provides an extensive search facility (Figure
4.2).
Initially, a global search was performed on pig and swab using the Title search
facility. This returned a list of all pipelines that contained drawings with titles
incorporating the search words. Using the system, each pipeline was analysed, on a
number of levels, to search for the required drawings. Once this search parameter had
been exhausted, another search was carried out using the DIS.
This time the search was for every pipeline owned by SunWater within the system,
regardless of whether or not it had pigging infrastructure. A stock take was undertaken,
eliminating all pipelines in the search results that had been previously evaluated. From
here, each remaining pipeline was analysed, on a number of levels, to ensure that no
pipeline containing any form of pigging infrastructure was missed. If the result was
positive, i.e. pigging infrastructure was found, the appropriate drawings were obtained.
Obtaining the drawings for pipelines that are external to SunWater was a different
process. Before any search could be conducted, the pipelines to be examined had to be
determined. This was done via consultation with senior members of SunWaters design
team. A number of organisations were identified that own and operate water delivery
pipelines. SunWater has and/or continues to have a working relationship with each of
the selected organisations. Through these working relationships, drawings for some of
the pipelines had already been obtained from the relevant organisation and included in
the DIS.
For these particular pipelines a search was conducted in much the same way as that for
the SunWater owned and operated pipelines. For collection of drawings for the
remaining externally owned and operated pipelines, communication lines were
established with each particular organisation. It is through these lines of communication
that the required drawings were sought.
At the end of the search a total of 16 pipelines were investigated from five different
organisations. The names of those organisations and their associated pipelines are as
follows:
As previously stated, not all of the desired drawings could be obtained for every
pipeline. Several of the pipelines in fact yielded none of the required drawings. The
majority of these pipelines being the ones owned and operated externally to SunWater.
However, although not all of the desired drawings could be obtained, enough were
obtained to give a reliable cross section of current pigging infrastructure arrangements.
The second stage involved the development of a questionnaire. The questionnaire was
developed for use in the operator survey (Section 4.3). It was developed to use as a
guide in the survey stage of the investigation. This was to ensure that the information
being gathered was uniform across the board.
The format adopted for the questionnaire was based on a template from SunWaters
standard forms and templates. The template was easily adapted to better suit the
requirements of the survey. Extra prompts for details were added and the existing core
topics were altered to suit. Also provided within the original template was room to
record answers to the questions during the survey.
The questionnaire was structured so that the questions would follow on from one
question to the next. In depth or lengthy questions were avoided. The aim being to focus
on a small number of key areas directly related to the project objectives.
As well as these specific pipeline pigging related questions, some general questions
were also included in the questionnaire. These questions were to do with pipeline details
(diameter, length etc.), the interviewees details and experience in the industry and the
source water quality. A copy of the final questionnaire is included as Appendix B.
Given the development of a questionnaire, the next stage was to conduct a survey. The
survey sought to gather information pertaining to the opinions of operations staff about
the pigging process they are involved in and more importantly the infrastructure they
are required to use. The survey entailed interviewing a range of people involved in
pigging operations. The people interviewed included:
pipeline operators;
operations supervisors;
pigging contractors.
Again the pipelines involved in the survey came from both within SunWaters network
as well as several external to SunWaters operations. The range of organisations and
number of pipelines included as part of the survey was similar to that for which
drawings were sought.
In either case, face-to-face or over the phone, each interview followed through the
questions on the questionnaire. Where necessary the interviews diverged from the
formal set of written questions. As the interview was conducted, the responses of the
interviewees were recorded straight onto the questionnaire itself.
Within SunWater the participation in the survey was reasonable. Of the 11 pipelines
incorporating pigging infrastructure that SunWater owns and operates, questionnaires
were completed for six. In addition, one of the pigging contractors regularly used by
SunWater also participated in the survey. Their insight was invaluable given the
experience they had and variety of infrastructure they had worked with.
The operability rating provided in the table has been determined based on the comments
received in the survey. WHS risk ratings provided in the table associated with each
pipelines infrastructure have also been based on comments received in the survey.
Four of the six pipelines owned and operated by SunWater that participated in the
survey have never been pigged. Three of these four pipelines were constructed in the
last five years, while the remaining pipeline is approximately 15 years old. Operability
and WHS ratings have not been given to these pipelines as the infrastructure has never
been used.
Of the two remaining SunWater owned and operated pipelines one is regularly pigged,
while the other is infrequent. Both pipelines contain pigging infrastructure housed in a
pit and both have inherent WHS issues. Operation of the two arrangements varies. One
requires the unbolting of several flanges, which is very time consuming. The other
incorporates couplings that are easily removed and reinstated. The pipeline frequently
pigged is done so internally by SunWater staff while the other is undertaken by a
contractor.
The particular contractor used by SunWater was also contacted and participated in the
survey. They provided details of the particular pigging operation undertaken on the
SunWater owned and operated pipeline. Also discussed were their thoughts on other
pigging operations they have undertaken, specifically the different infrastructure types
they have encountered.
Of the three pipelines external to SunWaters operation that participated in the survey,
two were regularly pigged while one had never been pigged. The pipeline that had never
been pigged was not given an operability or WHS rating, similar to that for the
SunWater pipelines that had not been pigged.
Both of the externally owned pipelines that are regularly pigged contain infrastructure
housed within a pit. Like that for the SunWater owned and operated pipelines there
were inherent WHS issues. The completed questionnaires for each interview undertaken
are included as Appendix C.
The purpose of the preceding three activities was to gather information on current
pigging practices and the infrastructure used as part of those practices. All of that
information was then to be used to develop a number of standard arrangements for pig
insertion and/or removal structures. The differing standard arrangements were to cater
for differing levels of use of the infrastructure.
To determine the different standard arrangements to be adopted for the project the
existing infrastructure arrangements had to be grouped. This grouping or categorising
was done according to the infrastructures general arrangement drawing. The
infrastructure arrangements that were similar were grouped together. This would
Each existing infrastructure arrangement contained specific comments from the survey.
These comments were sorted into the same groups as the infrastructure they relate to.
That information was then collated within each group. The end result was a number of
categories or groups of infrastructure, each with several slightly varying infrastructure
arrangements and their associated benefits or downfalls as described by the operators of
the pipelines themselves.
For each of these groups, taking into consideration the existing arrangements and
associated benefits or downfalls of each, a single arrangement was decided upon. This
arrangement was then drafted as a standard drawing for inclusion in the Pigging
Infrastructure Design Standard to be developed later in this thesis (Section 7.1).
The standard drawings developed are not detailed design drawings ready for
construction. They are general arrangement drawings, showing the arrangement and
labelling significant features. The standard drawings have been drafted for use in the
conceptual and/or preliminary design stages of a pipeline project only. The standard
arrangement drawings should be detailed according to the pipeline design, at the
detailed design stage of a pipeline project.
There were three distinct groups of existing infrastructure established. Those three
groups were defined, for the purposes of this project, as:
Level one infrastructure is not specifically designed for the pigging process. It is
designed as an add-on for another piece of infrastructure in the pipeline design. It
consists of two isolation valves and a dismantling joint. The arrangement itself will
depend upon the infrastructure it is being added to. The only requirement is that the
dismantling joint is between the two isolation valves. Common infrastructure that this
arrangement could be added to include; isolation structures, non return structures, or
as shown on the standard general arrangement drawing, flow meter structures. The
standard general arrangement drawing is included as Appendix D.
The basic operational procedure requires the two isolation valves to be closed. The
dismantling joint is then removed, after the section of pipe work between the two valves
has been de-pressurised. The pig is then inserted into the pipeline and the dismantling
joint is reinstated. The two isolation valves are then opened ready to launch the pig into
the pipeline. There is no enlargement in the pipe work to insert the pig. There exists a
requirement for the pig to be vacuum packed before it is inserted into the pipeline. As a
consequence only urethane foams pigs can be used. The packaging is then broken
before the pig is launched, eventually being eroded as the pig travels through the
pipeline.
During normal operation the main line isolation valve is open and the remaining two are
closed. The pig launcher is de-pressurised before removing the end cap. The pig is
inserted and the cap is reinstated. Upstream of the pig launcher, the isolation valve is
opened to fill the launch chamber. Once full, both the valves upstream and downstream
of the pig launcher are fully opened. The main line isolating valve is then slowly closed
to redirect the majority of flow through the pig launcher. As the flow through the
launcher increases the pig is launched into the pipeline. The infrastructure valving is
then returned to its configuration for normal operation.
This arrangement has been included to offer another option at this level of infrastructure
for consideration during detailed design. For costing and analysis purposes of this
project, the alternate arrangement is not considered.
Level two infrastructure is specifically designed for the pigging process. It consists of a
series of pipe fittings and valves. This particular arrangement is located in a pit below
the natural surface level. The standard general arrangement drawing is included as
Appendix E.
The basic operational procedure requires the two isolation valves to be closed. The two
couplings on either end of the pipe spool piece are loosened and pushed to the sides
after de-pressurisation. The pipe spool piece is then removed. This arrangement does
not include the facilities to roll the pipe spool piece to one side. It requires a crane to be
on site to lift the pipe spool piece out of the pit. The pig is then inserted into the pipe
spool piece, which is then reinstated. The two couplings are also then reinstated. Bypass
pipe work around the two isolation valves is used to fill the small section of line
containing the pipe spool piece. Once the line is full the two isolation valves are opened
ready to launch the pig into the pipeline.
The pipe work arrangement itself could also be altered during detailed design. The
extent of the alteration would depend on the location of the pigging infrastructure in
relation to other infrastructure. Possibilities exist for the elimination of one of the
isolating valves along with associated pipe work.
This arrangement, being a pit, has a number of inherent WHS issues. The first issue
relates to access. Should a vertical ladder be included, as in the standard general
arrangement drawing, some form of fall arrest system will be required. The second issue
relates to confined spaces, namely rescue of an injured person from the pit. Given the
only access is a vertical ladder, rescue would be difficult. The issue of limited access is
solved by having a crane (already on site to remove the pipe spool piece) and rescue
gear (harness, stretcher etc.) on site during operation. An alternative to having a crane
on site would be to install some form of permanent davit arm. Both of these issues will
require further consideration during detailed design. For the purpose of this project an
options analysis, completed as part of this research, proved the most economical option
was the use of a crane.
Level three infrastructure is also specifically designed for the pigging process. It too
consists of a series of pipe fittings and valves. This particular arrangement, however, is
located above ground. The standard general arrangement drawing is included as
Appendix F.
The basic operational procedure is almost identical to that of the level two
infrastructure. It requires the two isolation valves to be closed. Once closed the isolated
section of pipe work is de-pressurised. The coupling on one end of the pipe spool piece
is loosened and pushed to the side and the flange on the other end is unbolted. The pipe
spool piece is then removed. Unlike the level two infrastructure, this arrangement does
include the facilities to roll the pipe spool piece to one side. The pig is then inserted into
the pipe spool piece, which is then reinstated. The coupling is also then reinstated.
Bypass pipe work around the two isolation valves are again used to fill the small section
of line containing the pipe spool piece. Once the line is full the two isolation valves are
opened ready to launch the pig down the pipeline.
The pipe work arrangement itself, like the level two infrastructure, could also be altered
during detailed design. The extent of the alteration would again depend on the location
of the pigging infrastructure in relation to other infrastructure. Possibilities also exist in
this arrangement for the elimination of one of the isolating valves and its associated
pipe work.
The main driver behind this arrangement is the elimination of the inherent WHS issues
associated with the level two infrastructure. This is achieved by bringing the pipe work
above ground. However, in doing this the issue of thrust is greatly increased. Thrust
issues are solved by way of large concrete thrust blocks. Thrust block design has been
considered as part of this research. Further design will be required at the detailed design
stage of a project.
As part of this project, design of thrust blocks on level three infrastructure was purely to
determine relative sizes for costing. SunWaters design library includes a spreadsheet
that provides thrust block sizes based on a set of design criteria. The spreadsheet is
designed for use in determining thrust block sizes for both horizontal and vertical bends
along a pipeline. It is not specifically focused on the particular type of thrust block
design encountered in the level three infrastructure, but for the purpose of this project it
will provide adequate results. A copy of the completed thrust bock design spreadsheet is
included as Appendix G.
Where thrust blocks were required to be designed they were done so based on the class
of pipe being used. This meant that the test head adopted was the Allowable Operating
Pressure (AOP) of the particular pipe class being used, as described in the Ductile Iron
Pipeline Systems Design Manual (Tyco Flow Control Asia Pacific Group 2008). An
invert elevation of 0.0 m was adopted in all design cases. This meant that the thrust
blocks were being designed based on the pipeline operating at the maximum pressure
that the pipe class being used could sustain. Effectively the thrust blocks have been very
conservatively designed for the purpose of this project.
Pipe diameter varied throughout the analysis; however the angle of the bend in question
was always 45 degrees, as per the standard general arrangement drawing for level
three infrastructure. Finally, the height and width adopted for the thrust blocks were:
Height calculations were a sum of the pipe diameter, cover to natural surface (900 mm)
and a set depth below the pipe (300 mm). The width calculation was a sum of the pipe
diameter and a set distance either side of the pipe (500 mm).
Resultant thrust forces are calculated in the spreadsheet using the following formula, set
out in Hardies Textbook of Pipeline Design (James Hardie & Coy. Pty. Limited 1985):
This formula does not take into account the velocity of flow within the pipeline. It
considers it as a small enough number to be negligible. Results of the design gave thrust
block sizes ranging from 4.5 m3 to 40.4 m3. As previously stated, thrust block designs
for the purpose of this project have been done so conservatively. Further consideration
needs to be given to thrust issues at the detailed design stage of any pipeline project.
With any project in this current age, design for WHS is essential and needs to be given
careful consideration. Within SunWater a WHS Management System exists for use in
all designs. As part of that management system, a flow chart of the design process for
design for construction and end users is provided. This flow chart sets out the
responsibilities of the different contributors to the design i.e. project manager, designer
and end user. It shows what reviews are required, what part of the design process they
should occur in and who should take part in the reviews.
Elimination;
Substitution;
engineering controls;
administrative controls;
protective equipment (PPE&C).
This hierarchy of controls should always be applied starting from the top (elimination)
and working down to the bottom (protective equipment). A combination of these
controls may be required.
For all work involved in this research project, both desktop and field related, a
comprehensive risk assessment was undertaken. Resulting from that risk assessment
was the development of a Work Method Statement (WMS). Both the risk assessment
and WMS were developed using SunWaters WHS Policy (SunWater 2010). Copies of
the risk assessment and WMS are included as Appendix H.
There are WHS issues associated with each infrastructure arrangement established as
part of this project. The level two infrastructure is the most prone to WHS issues, and
several of those have already been discussed (Section 4.4.2). One issue that is of
concern for each level of infrastructure is access to the isolation valves for opening
and/or closing. They are too high to access from floor level. In any level of
infrastructure a platform could be constructed allowing appropriate access to the top of
the valves. In the case of level two infrastructure, a spindle could be extended to the side
of the pit.
A solution to this problem has not been incorporated onto the standard arrangement
drawings, it has merely been noted that there is a requirement for access to the top of the
valves. For the purposes of this project this issue is common to all levels of
infrastructure and the costs of negation of the issue would also be common. Therefore
those costs have not been included as part of the analysis and would be another issue for
detailed design.
An individual safe design review has been undertaken incorporating all levels of
infrastructure as part of this project (Appendix H). However, due to recent re-structuring
within the organisation, gaining access to a WHSO to assist with a safe design review
was difficult. Regardless of this, incorporation of any level of infrastructure into a
detailed design will require a full WHS risk assessment. That risk assessment will need
to include a safe design review and will also require the input of not only a WHSO but
operations and maintenance staff as well.
4.5 Summary
The qualitative side of the project was broken up into four parts; existing arrangements,
questionnaire, survey and standard arrangement development. Infrastructure
arrangements used in current practice were established. Those arrangements were then
subjected to critical evaluation by way of a questionnaire based survey. The existing
infrastructure were categorised based on their arrangement. A single standard
arrangement was then developed from each of these categories.
In total three differing levels of infrastructure were established. For each arrangement a
standard general arrangement drawing was drafted. Basic operational procedures have
also been outlined. All of the standard arrangements are conceptual only. The final
infrastructure arrangement for construction will require detailed design.
One of the project objectives was to attend the pigging of a pipeline. The purpose of this
objective was to gain practical experience in all aspects of the pigging process;
ultimately leading to a better understanding of the process itself and the requirements of
the infrastructure from an operations point of view.
At the beginning of July the opportunity arose to attend the pigging of Stanwell
Pipeline. Stanwell Pipeline is one of SunWaters owned and operated pipelines. The
pipeline is approximately 28 km in length and is located 20 minutes west of
Rockhampton in Central Queensland. The pipelines primary customer is the Stanwell
Power Station.
Stanwell Pipeline is one of the more regularly pigged pipelines within SunWaters
network. On average, this pipeline is pigged twice every year. As this is the case, the
operations crew working on Stanwell Pipeline are one of the more experienced in the
pigging process within SunWater. It is for this reason that Stanwell Pipeline was chosen
as the best to attend as far as gaining a practical understanding of the pigging process is
concerned.
The whole process took approximately three days. The first day involved travel to site
and completing the necessary approvals and paper work to allow the pigging operation
to happen. Customers also had to be contacted and made aware of the operation.
Preparation of the pig also occurred on the first day. The pig used was a Metal Mandrel
pig (Figure 5.1). Preparation of the pig involved replacing the four urethane discs on the
pig and loading it onto a trailer for transport to site.
The second day was when the pigging process was undertaken. The process itself was
very similar to that described in Section 2.1, with some minor variations to suit this
particular pipeline. There were six operators involved in this particular pigging
operation. Usually only four operators are required, but on this occasion there were two
additional people who were there for training purposes. The pipeline was pigged as a
single section and the entire operation ran smoothly with minimal interruptions. Figure
5.2 shows the pig exiting the pipeline.
The third and final day included debriefing and analysis. The previous days operation
was discussed to identify any issues for future reference. The flow rate data was also
checked to quantify the improvement in the pipelines efficiency. Finally all photos
were documented and saved and reports completed before travelling home.
The second part of the research focuses on the quantitative side of the problem (Figure
6.1). It involved a detailed analysis of the costs associated with each level of
infrastructure developed in the first part of the research. The purpose of the analysis was
to determine the total cost of each level of infrastructure over its design life. The total
cost then being a direct link to the benefits, or savings, required from the pigging
process for that level of infrastructure to be justified.
The analysis had three contributing factors. All three factors were used to develop a
model (Section 6.4) for use in determining the total costs of the infrastructure over its
design life. The three contributing factors are listed below and discussed in the
following sections:
capital costs;
operational costs;
an options analysis into various WHS & operational issues.
The capital costs associated with pigging infrastructure are those costs involved in
constructing the infrastructure in the first instance. There are a number of separate costs
that when combined, will form the total capital investment:
The pipe work costs include the costs associated with each and every piece of pipe work
contained within a particular level of infrastructure. Not only are off the shelf pipe
fittings included, any pipe specials that are required are also included. This is the case
for both the mainline diameter pipe work and any smaller pipe work involved in the
arrangement, such as bypass pipe work.
Off the shelf pipe fitting costs were obtained directly from a supplier. Two Ductile
Iron Cement Lined (DICL) pipe suppliers were contacted and both provided budget
prices for the particular pipe fittings requested. The first supplier provided costs for both
the PN20 and PN35 pipe work. The second only provided costs for the PN20 pipe work.
Of the two, the prices the second supplier provided were deemed to be the most
accurate. As they did not provide costs for the PN35 pipe work some form of
interpolation was required. The costs provided by the first supplier, showed on average
a ten percent increase in price between the PN20 and PN35 pipe work. This percentage
increase was adopted and applied to the PN20 pipe work costs provided by the second
supplier to obtain P35 pipe work costs.
Other costs, such as air valve arrangement and pipe special fabrication costs were
extracted directly from previous project actual costs (projects undertaken by SunWater).
Where direct costs could not be obtained they were interpolated from the costs of the
same pipe work of a different diameter. The interpolation was undertaken using the
trend line feature contained within Microsoft Excel. Known costs were plotted against
pipeline diameter and a trend line fitted to the curve. The trend line used was either
linear or polynomial. The equation for that line was then used to determine the unknown
costs. An example of such is shown in Figure 6.2. All pipe fitting costs include the costs
of associated bolt and gasket sets.
Valve costs are simply the total cost of all valves within the arrangement. This includes
all main line isolation valves, bypass valves, drain valves and any other valves
associated with operation of the infrastructure. This does not include air valves which
are factored into the pipe work costs.
Valve costs were determined in the same way as the off the shelf pipe fitting costs;
they were obtained directly from a supplier. Where interpolation was required it was
done so in the same manner as that for the pipe work costs. The valve costs, as with the
pipe fittings costs, include the cost of all necessary bolt and gasket sets.
All concrete and reinforcement costs were based on a per cubic metre rate. The concrete
and reinforcement costs do not include costs associated with thrust blocks. Costs
associated with thrust blocks have been included in the construction costs. The cubic
metre rate accounts for all costs associated with the construction of a reinforced
concrete structure, including:
Excavation;
form work material and erection;
reinforcement supply and tying;
concrete supply and pouring;
all other miscellaneous costs associated with a concrete structure itself.
The rate adopted for this analysis was $2,500.00 per cubic metre. This figure has been
adopted within SunWater for use in cost estimates. Outside of this project, an analysis
was undertaken by one of SunWaters internal construction supervisors. The analysis
revealed the adopted rate to be quite accurate and hence sufficient for use in cost
estimates. Provided the same unit rate is applied consistently, a credible cost
comparison will be achieved.
The costs associated with metal item fabrication vary depending on the amount and type
of metal fabrication that is required for a particular arrangement. Metal items that are
common on pipeline pigging infrastructure include:
ladders;
handrails;
pipe supports;
pipe spool roll out arrangements.
The costs associated with fabrication of these metal items have been determined in one
of two ways. The preferred method was to extract fabrication costs directly from
previous project actual costs (projects undertaken by SunWater). Where applicable, the
extracted costs were turned into a per metre rate and applied to the metal items of the
various pipe diameters. This approach was adopted for ladders and handrails. Where
direct costs could not be obtained a conservative lump sum figure was applied. This
approach was adopted for pipe supports and pipe spool roll out arrangements. Costs
associated with these two items are generally constant regardless of diameter. The
following illustrates the rates and lump sum values adopted:
ladders = $500.00/m;
handrails = $105.00/m;
supports = $1000.00 each;
roll out rail arrangement = $1000.00 each.
Construction costs encompass any other costs associated with the construction of the
infrastructure not yet already considered. The following is a list of those costs:
labour;
plant/machinery;
miscellaneous items;
thrust blocks.
Both labour costs and plant/machinery costs were considered as a daily rate. The
constituents of that daily rate were simply an hourly rate multiplied by the number of
hours worked in a day. For the purpose of this project both labour and plant/machinery
daily rates were based on a ten hour day.
Individual items of plant/machinery were allocated hourly rates. The hourly rates came
directly from the relevant plant/machinery operators that are used by SunWater. The
labour consisted of three items:
Both the labour and supervisor rates are based on SunWaters existing internal charge
out rates. The accommodation and meal allowance was based on rates provided in
SunWaters Travel Allowance Policy (SunWater 2010).
The miscellaneous costs are made up of a number of small items that are required
during the construction process. They are generally items that can be purchased at a
local hardware store. The rate adopted for this aspect was a lump sum based purely on
previous experience.
Thrust block costs are similar to the concrete and reinforcement costs in that they are
also based on a per cubic metre rate. Like the concrete and reinforcement rate it
accounts for all materials, plant/machinery and labour required for construction. The
rate adopted was $1,500.00 per cubic metre. A lower rate has been adopted for thrust
blocks than structural concrete due to thrust blocks being primarily mass concrete. The
reinforcing in thrust blocks is minimal compared to that of structural concrete.
The operational costs are costs associated with the undertaking of the pigging process
itself. These are purely a summation of resource costs. The only material cost incurred
is the cost of the pig itself. There are two resources used in the pigging process:
Labour;
plant/machinery.
Both labour costs and plant/machinery costs were considered as a daily rate. The
constituents of that daily rate were simply an hourly rate multiplied by the number of
hours worked in a day. Again, for the purpose of this project both labour and
plant/machinery daily rates were based on a ten hour day.
There is only a small amount of plant/machinery required for the pigging process.
Where it was required it was allocated an hourly rate that came directly from the
relevant plant/machinery operators that are used by SunWater.
The labour costs for the purpose of this project were based on the process requiring four
people. An electrician for all isolations and operating the pumps, one person tracking
the pig, one person ahead of the pig closing off-takes and another person behind the pig
reopening off-takes.
The labour rate is again based on SunWaters existing internal charge out rates. The
accommodation and meal allowance was also again based on rates provided in
SunWaters Travel Allowance Policy (SunWater 2010).
The cost of the pig used in the pigging process will also vary depending on the type of
pig used. However, for the purpose of this project the cost of the pig was taken as being
common to all infrastructure levels and therefore not included as part of the analysis.
In calculating the total operational costs over the design life of a pipeline, the Present
Value (PV) of those operational costs has been used. To determine the PV of the
operational costs the PV function within Microsoft Excel has been used.
interest rate;
number of payment periods;
the payment value;
the expected future value (at end of last payment period);
either payment at the beginning of end of the period.
For the purposes of this project an interest rate of six percent has been adopted. The
number of payment periods is 20, based on the design life of the pipeline (20 years)
with only one payment per period. Payment value varied depending on the analysis
being undertaken. The expected future value was always considered to be $0 and the
payment was always made at the end of the payment period.
The formula the PV function within Excel uses in the calculation is as follows:
During the standard arrangement development there were a number of operational and
WHS issues to be considered. As such, the solutions to these issues had the potential to
impact upon one another. To ensure that there was no duplication in the solutions to
these issues, an options analysis was undertaken. This options analysis determined the
most economical solution for these issues.
The overlapping issues involved the access and egress of the infrastructure and the
method in which dismantled pipes could be removed. The different solutions to the
problems were costed using information sought from suppliers. These costs were then
compared for a number of scenarios to determine the most economical method of
solving the issue.
The options analysis only applied to the level two and three infrastructure. Due to the
arrangement being completely different, the level one infrastructure did not have the
same issues as the other two levels of infrastructure. To begin the analysis, the different
issues were considered and all possible solutions to the individual issues were then
recorded. Against each solution, its associated costs (over the design life of the pipeline)
were determined, as shown below:
The level three infrastructure was only concerned with the pipe spool removal for which
the options and associated costs are shown above. Once all individual costs had been
determined, the various solution combinations were established and total costs
calculated. Table 6.1 summarises those combinations and their associated total costs.
The complete options analysis is included as Appendix I.
Under the level two infrastructure, the first option uses stairs for access and egress and a
crane to remove the pipe spool piece. The second option again uses stairs for access and
egress, but a roll out arrangement for pipe spool removal. The third option adopts a
vertical ladder (complete with fall arrest system) for access and egress. It incorporates a
davit arm for confined space rescue and the roll out arrangement for the pipe spool. The
final option again uses the vertical ladder and fall arrest system, but adopts a crane for
both pipe spool removal and confined space rescue. The level three infrastructure
options are simply a comparison between the roll out arrangement and the use of a crane
for pipe spool removal.
In all options that use a crane, the costs shown represent the PV of the costs associated
with that crane over the 20 year design life. For more detail on the PV calculation refer
to Section 6.2.1.
For the pipe spool removal in the level three infrastructure, adopting the crane approach
is extremely expensive compared to the roll out arrangement. The roll out arrangement
is by far the most cost effective option and was adopted. However, this is not the case
for the level two infrastructure. Together with the installation of vertical ladders
(complete with fall arrest systems), using a crane for the removal of the pipe spool is the
most cost effective option. It is more cost effective in this instance than the roll out
arrangement as the crane can perform two duties. It can be used for removal of the pipe
spool piece, as well as a rescue device given the confined space. This in turn eliminates
the requirement for a davit arm and hence the costs associated with it. Not having a pipe
spool roll out feature will also allow the pit size to be reduced, with resulting savings in
concrete and construction costs.
The option of installing stairs instead of a ladder eliminates the requirement for any
form of rescue device. However the cost of the stairs, as shown, is significantly higher
than that of the ladder. This is due to the stairs requiring the pit to be much wider.
Therefore, there is not only the cost of the stairs themselves to consider, but the cost of
the extra pit width.
Options presented above enable the calculation of the capital and operational costs of
each level of infrastructure for the purpose of this project. There are a number of
different issues to be considered regarding WHS in the design of any infrastructure.
These options should be considered in depth as part of detailed design and its associated
risk assessments. The hierarchy of controls for WHS (Section 4.4.5) should be followed
i.e. the primary solution should be elimination. If the most appropriate control is an
engineering control, as discussed above, administrative and PPE&C controls should
also be put in place during operation i.e. WMS.
6.4 Modelling
A model was developed in order to process all of the costing information. This model
was used to determine the total capital investment and the operational costs of a
particular level of infrastructure, for a particular pipe class, over the pipelines design
life. The model itself was a Microsoft Excel based system. A copy of the bare model is
included as Appendix J.
Throughout the model, the spreadsheet cells are colour coded. Green cells represent
rates or costs that have been manually added. Red cells are cells that require information
to be entered depending on the type of infrastructure being assessed. Blue cells contain
formulas that automatically populate once all of the red cells have been populated. In
total the model consists of 11 workbooks or sheets within Excel:
Interface;
Capital Costs;
Operational Costs;
Total Costs;
Working;
PN20 Pipe Costs;
PN35 Pipe Costs;
Pipe Dimensions;
Concrete-Metal;
Construction;
Operation.
The Interface is the results sheet of the model. It shows the capital and operational costs
of the infrastructure over the pipe diameter range, as well as the total costs of the
infrastructure over the pipelines design life. Due to the way the model has been
constructed, some manipulation of data is required each time the model is used. The
amount of manipulation required depends on the type of infrastructure being assessed.
The Capital, Operational and Total Costs sheets contain graphs showing the results from
the Interface sheet. The results are graphed using an XY plot over the pipe diameter
range. The Capital and Operational graphs show the capital and operational cost results
respectively. The Total Costs graph shows the combined capital and operational cost
results. These sheets are set to populate automatically and require no manipulation.
The Working sheet is used to calculate the concrete volumes (excluding thrust blocks)
associated with each type of infrastructure. Volumes are determined automatically using
formulas and take into consideration the pipe work in the arrangement and the main
pipe diameter. Again there is no manipulation required in this sheet. The concrete
volume calculations assume several dimensions (where applicable):
a clear width between the pipe and concrete wall of 800 mm;
wall thicknesses of 500 mm (thrust bearing wall) and 300 mm (all other);
floor thickness of 300 mm;
pipe cover of 900 mm;
a clear height between the pipe and floor of 300 mm;
a finished height above natural surface of 200 mm or 50 mm (depending on the
infrastructure).
The PN20 Pipe Costs and PN35 Pipe Costs sheets, as their names suggest, contain the
all of the individual pipe fitting costs. They also contain the respective valve costs.
Again, as the name suggests, the Pipe Dimensions sheet contains all of the necessary
dimensions of the individual pipe fittings. All of the dimensions have been sourced
directly from the Ductile Iron Pipeline Systems Design Manual (Tyco Flow Control
Asia Pacific Group 2008). No manipulation is required in any of these sheets.
The Concrete-Metal sheet contains the cubic metre rate for reinforced concrete
(excluding thrust blocks). It also contains all of the metal item costing information. The
metal items cells contain both rates and formulas, however, again there is no
manipulation required.
Contained within the Construction sheet are all of the construction costs. The majority
of this sheet contains formulas and rates. The units of the rates do vary. Unlike most of
the other sheets in the model, this sheet does require manipulation during the modelling
The final sheet in the model, Operation, contains all of the costs associated with the
pigging process, or operational costs. This sheet is very similar to the Construction
sheet. It contains mainly formulas and rates. Manipulation is also required within this
sheet when modelling. Again that manipulation involves the population of quantity
cells.
The model could not take into account every possible variable. It is for this reason a
number of assumptions were required, and have been based on previous knowledge and
common practice in the design of water pipelines within SunWater. Assumptions made
relating to the modelling of the infrastructure costs were as follows:
* Pipelines greater in length than 25km are pigged in sections, thus requiring more infrastructure. In
essence, this assumption only allows for one insertion structure and one removal structure per pipeline.
The construction costs for the level one infrastructure (PN20 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.3.
Based on a ten hour working day, as discussed in Section 6.1.5, it was determined that a
total of one day would be required to construct this level of infrastructure for a 375 mm
diameter pipeline. Through consultation with senior design and construction staff within
SunWater it was determined that for a 750 mm diameter pipeline, it would take three
times as long to construct the infrastructure. The multiplication factor for the
intermediate pipeline diameters was then determined using interpolation. The
interpolation was based on a linear trend line of the following equation:
y = 0.005x 0.75
The miscellaneous costs, as discussed in Section 6.1.5, have been assigned a lump sum
value. This value has been adopted using previous experience in construction. The same
interpolation has been used over the full pipe diameter range. Finally, no thrust block
costs have been included. Costs associated with any thrust issues will have been
accounted for in the design of the infrastructure that the level one pigging arrangement
is being added to.
To put it another way, the issue of thrust on the piece of infrastructure that the level one
arrangement is being added to would still exist even if the level one arrangement was
not added to it. Therefore the costs associated in solving any thrust issues are part of
the piece of infrastructure the level one arrangement is being added to and not the
level one infrastructure itself.
The operational costs for the level one infrastructure (PN20 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.4.
Also based on a ten hour working day, it was determined that for a 750 mm diameter
pipeline using level one infrastructure, the pigging process would take three days. It was
concluded that the operational costs would only slightly vary over the diameter range.
The only difference would be in the time taken to remove and reinstate the extra bolts in
each flange set. It was therefore decided to base the operational costs for the remainder
of the diameter range on a five percent decrease i.e. each time the diameter reduced the
operational costs would reduce by a factor of 0.05.
The three days allowed for the pigging process includes the time taken to complete
everything from the development of work method statements and other related
paperwork, the pigging operation itself through to the final reporting at the end of the
process.
Of the three levels, it has been determined that the level one infrastructure requires the
most time to undertake the pigging process. This is due to a number of factors:
The crane is required for only one day. Its sole job is to lift the dismantling joint out of
and back into place. The crane does not have to be on site while the pig is travelling
through the pipeline. Two nights of accommodation and meals assumes that all
personnel travel to site on the first morning and return home on the third afternoon.
Thus there is only a requirement for two nights.
The results of the model created for level one infrastructure using a pipe class of PN20
are contained within Table 6.2. The full model is included as Appendix K.
In determining the total capital costs two pieces of infrastructure have been included, a
pig insertion structure and a pig removal structure. The total operational cost accounts
for all of the operational costs over the entire design life of the pipeline. The PV of
those operational costs has been calculated and adopted. It was determined on an
interest rate of six percent over the 20 year design life. A ten precent contingency has
also been added to both the capital cost and the operational cost of the infrastructure.
The results show quite a large increase in total costs from the lower end of the diameter
range to the upper. Of the three levels of infrastructure, level one has the lowest capital
investment over the entire diameter range. Given the minimal amount of material and
construction effort required this comes as no surprise. On the other hand, as previously
The construction costs for the level two infrastructure (PN20 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.5.
Based on a ten hour working day, as discussed in Section 6.1.5, it was decided that a
total of four days would be required to construct this level of infrastructure for 375 mm
diameter pipelines. Again, it was adopted that level two infrastructure on a 750 mm
diameter pipeline would take three times as long to construct. The interpolation of the
multiplication factor for the diameters in between was the same as that described for the
level one infrastructure (Section 6.4.1).
The lump sum value adopted for the miscellaneous items in this level of infrastructure is
greater than that of the previous level. This is due to the large increase in complexity of
the arrangement. The value adopted has again been done so based on previous
experience in construction. The same interpolation has been adopted over the diameter
range. Finally, no thrust block costs have been included. Costs associated with any
thrust issues will have been accounted for in the design of the pit this level of
infrastructure is situated in.
The operational costs for the level one infrastructure (PN20 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.6.
Also based on a ten hour working day, it was determined that for a 750 mm diameter
pipeline using level two infrastructure the pigging process would take two and a half
days. Again the operational costs would only slightly vary over the diameter range and
hence the same reduction factor of 0.05 has been adopted as that for level one
infrastructure.
The two and a half days again allows for everything from the development of work
method statements and other related paperwork, the pigging operation itself through to
the final reporting at the end of the process.
Level two infrastructure, of the two levels discussed thus far, requires the least amount
of time to undertake the pigging process. This is due to the ease of removal of the pipe
spool piece. Only two couplings (4-6 bolts) have to be removed and then reinstated.
There is also a specialised launch chamber in this arrangement that does enlarge i.e. the
pig can be inserted straight into the pipeline with ease.
The crane is required for only half a day. Although for this level of infrastructure it
serves two purposes. The first is similar to the level one arrangement, lifting the pipe
spool out of and back into place. The second is to act as a rescue device should it be
required. Due to the process of removing the pipe spool only requiring two couplings to
be un-bolted, the amount of time the crane is on site is reduced. Again the crane is not
required while the pig travels through the pipeline. Two nights of accommodation and
meals assumes that all personnel will travel to site on the morning of the first day and
return home in the early afternoon of the third. Thus there is still the requirement for
two nights.
The results of the model created for level two infrastructure using a pipe class on PN20
are contained within Table 6.3. The full model is included as Appendix L.
Calculation of the total capital costs again includes two pieces of infrastructure. The
operational costs are again over the entire design life of the pipeline based on their PV.
A ten percent contingency has also been added to both the capital costs and the
operational costs.
The results show an even larger increase in total costs from the lower end of the
diameter range to the upper than that of the level one infrastructure. Of the two levels of
infrastructure assessed thus far, level two has by far the highest total costs over the
entire diameter range. It is the capital cost of this infrastructure that sees it the most
expensive thus far, given the large increase in complexity of the level two arrangement.
As previously discussed, level two infrastructure requires less effort operationally than
that of the level one. As a consequence it has lower costs associated with its operation.
The construction costs for the level three infrastructure (PN20 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.7.
Based on a ten hour working day, it was decided that a total of six days would be
required to construct this level of infrastructure for a 375 mm diameter pipeline. As with
the previous two levels, it was adopted that the level three infrastructure on a 750 mm
diameter pipeline would take three times as long to construct. The interpolation of the
multiplication factor for the diameters in between was the same as that described for the
level one infrastructure (Section 6.4.1).
The lump sum value adopted for the miscellaneous items in this level of infrastructure is
the same as that for level two. Level three infrastructure has a similar level complexity
in the arrangement. The value adopted has again been done so based on previous
experience in construction. The same interpolation has been adopted over the diameter
range. Unlike the previous two levels, thrust blocks are required on level three
infrastructure. The rough size of the thrust block required has been determined for each
pipe diameter (Section 4.4.4). The thrust calculations were based on the maximum
pressure PN20 class pipe could safety operate under.
The operational costs for the level three infrastructure (PN20 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.8.
Based on a ten hour working day, it was determined that for a 750 mm diameter
pipeline using level three infrastructure the pigging process would take two and a half
days. Again the operational costs would only slightly vary over the diameter range and
hence the same reduction factor has been adopted as that for level one and two
infrastructure.
The two and a half days again allows for all aspects of the pigging operation, from the
development of work method statements and other related paperwork, the pigging
operation itself through to the final reporting at the end of the process.
Level three infrastructure uses the same amount of time to undertake the pigging
process as that for the level two infrastructure. Level three will be quicker than level one
as it too has a pipe spool piece allowing for easy pig insertion/removal. However, unlike
the level two arrangement it only has one coupling. The opposite end of the pipe spool
piece still has a flange set due to the thrust issues associated with this level of
infrastructure. Consequently this adds time in having to remove and then reinstate the
bolts. Although it would take longer to physically insert and remove the pig than that in
level two infrastructure, the entire process takes the same amount of time. This is due to
the extra paperwork and process required in the level two infrastructure as a
consequence of its inherent WHS issues.
A crane is not required for this level of infrastructure. A roll out arrangement has been
included to eliminate the need for a crane. Two nights of accommodation and meals
assumes that all personnel will travel to site on the morning of the first day and return
home in the early afternoon of the third day. There is therefore still the requirement for
two nights.
The results of the model created for level three infrastructure using a pipe class on PN20
are contained within Table 6.4. The full model is included as Appendix M.
As with the previous two levels of infrastructure calculation of the total capital cost
includes two pieces of infrastructure. The operational costs are again over the entire
design life of the pipeline and they are based on their PV. A ten percent contingency has
also been added to both the capital costs and the operational costs.
The results show a similar increase in total costs from the lower end of the diameter
range to the upper as that for the level two arrangement. Compared with the level one
infrastructure, the level three infrastructure is far more expensive over the entire
diameter range. This is again due to the complexity of the arrangement.
Comparing the level three infrastructure to the level two infrastructure tells a different
story. In the lower diameter range (less than 500 mm diameter), the level three
infrastructure is the cheaper of the two. Conversely, once in the upper diameter range
(greater than 500 mm diameter) the level two infrastructure is the cheaper of the
options. The driver behind this is the size and cost of the thrust blocks required for the
larger diameter arrangements in the level three infrastructure.
As previously discussed, using the level three infrastructure requires the same amount
of operational effort as the level two infrastructure. However, its operational costs over
the pipe diameter range are lower than that of the level two arrangement due to no crane
being required. As per the level two operational costs, the level three operational costs
are also lower than that of the level one arrangement.
The construction and operational costs associated with level one infrastructure (PN35)
are based on the same quantities as that for the PN20 class pipe. The methodology was
exactly the same.
The results of the model created for level one infrastructure using a pipe class on PN35
are contained within Table 6.5. The full model is included as Appendix N.
The PN35 class pipe results contain the same details as those for the PN20 class pipe
(Section 6.4.1). The results themselves are also very similar, although slightly higher.
The slight increase in the total cost is due to a slight increase in capital investment
because of the higher cost of the pipe work.
The construction costs for the level two infrastructure (PN20 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.9.
The construction costs for level two infrastructure on a PN35 class pipeline follow the
same methodology as that for a PN20 class pipeline. The only difference is five days
have been allowed for construction for a 375 mm diameter pipeline. The extra day is to
account for the extra bolting required on PN35 class flanges. The operational costs and
the methodology behind them are exactly the same as that for the PN20 class pipeline.
The results of the model created for level two infrastructure using a pipe class on PN35
are contained in Table 6.6. The full model is included as Appendix O.
The PN35 class pipe results contain the same details as those for the PN20 class pipe
(Section 6.4.2). The results themselves are also very similar, although higher. The
increase in the total cost is due to an increase in capital investment. The capital
investment has increased because of the higher cost of the pipe work and the extra time
required for construction.
The construction costs for the level three infrastructure (PN35 pipe class) were based on
the quantities illustrated in Figure 6.10.
The construction costs for level three infrastructure on a PN35 class pipeline follow the
same methodology as that for a PN20 class pipeline. However, there are two
differences. An extra day, seven in total, has been allowed for construction on a 375 mm
diameter pipeline. The extra day is to account for the extra bolting required on PN35
class flanges. The second difference is in the size of the thrust blocks required.
Obviously the maximum pressure PN35 class pipes can handle is larger than that in
PN20 class pipes, hence the thrust blocks need to be bigger. The operational costs and
the methodology behind them are exactly the same as that for the PN20 class pipeline.
The results of the model created for level three infrastructure using a pipe class on PN35
are contained in Table 6.7. The full model is included as Appendix P.
The PN35 class pipe results contain the same details as those for the PN20 class pipe
(Section 6.4.3). The results themselves are similar, although the increase itself in total
cost is greater than that experienced in the other two levels. This is due to the increase in
capital investment because of the increase in the size of the thrust blocks and the extra
time required for construction.
6.5 Summary
The quantitative side of the project consisted of developing a number of models. The
models were used to analyse the costs associated with the three levels of infrastructure.
The analysis included all capital and operational costs of the infrastructure. It also
included an options analysis to determine the most cost effective solution to several
WHS and operational issues.
In total six models were created to analyse all levels of infrastructure in both PN20 and
PN35 class pipes. The diameter range over which the analysis occurred was 375 mm up
to 750 mm. The analysis yielded results that were reasonably accurate. A check was
undertaken to test the accuracy of the results as far as capital and operational costs are
concerned. That check revealed, for the particular pipe class, diameter and level of
infrastructure, the results of this analysis were larger than the actual costs of a project
undertaken three years ago. Reasons for the higher costs have been looked at in Section
7.3.
The third part of the research brings the qualitative and quantitative sides of the problem
together (Figure 7.1). This third and final stage of the project forms the physical output
of the research.
A pigging infrastructure standard was written utilising the results of the project. This
standard is intended to be used as a guide at the conceptual and/or preliminary design
stages of a pipeline project. It provides a link between the pigging infrastructure
arrangements and the benefits of the pigging process.
The standard initially sets out and describes the different infrastructure levels. It
discusses the general arrangements of the infrastructure and their basic operational
procedures (Section 4.4). Results from the financial analysis are also included. These
results show the benefit or financial saving required from the pigging process to justify
the inclusion of that particular infrastructure arrangement in a pipeline design (Section
6.4).
All of the assumptions discussed in Section 6.4 are listed in the standard. This is to
allow users of the standard to understand what has been taken into consideration in the
analysis as discussed in previous sections. The standard also contains the three
infrastructure general arrangement drawings. Finally the standard discusses the
estimating tool. It gives a brief procedure on how to use the estimating tool and what
assumptions are still relevant.
The standard was developed using a SunWater template. An electronic copy of the final
standard will be registered into SunWaters Document Management System. This will
allow it to be updated as time dictates. A hard copy of the document will be added to
SunWaters Design Library. The standard is included as Appendix Q.
The estimating tool has been based on the model previously created. The extra
flexibility it offers the user comes from the elimination of several of the assumptions.
By providing this extra flexibility the above standard can be adopted to a wider range of
pipeline design projects.
Three of the assumptions previously stated have been removed. The estimating tool
allows the user to select the frequency of the pigging event. This frequency is based on
the number of times a pipeline is estimated to require pigging per year. It gives the user
the opportunity to input a pipeline length that can be greater than 25km. Essentially this
allows for two pieces of infrastructure for the first 25km of a pipeline and then one
additional piece of infrastructure for each subsequent 25km. Finally, it allows the user
to select the design life of the pipeline.
As previously mentioned, the estimating tool is still an Excel based tool that uses the
model previously created as a base. As well as providing more flexibility by eliminating
several of the assumptions the model was governed by, it includes a user interface
(Figure 7.2). This user interface, while fairly basic, eliminates the requirement for
manipulation of the model itself. A copy of the estimating tool is included as Appendix
R. The following is a step-by-step guide on how to use the tool:
1. Open the estimating tool named Pigging Infrastructure Estimating Tool.xls and
the worksheet shown in figure 7.2 is displayed.
2. Select the pipeline length from the PIPELINE LENGTH drop down menu.
3. Select the pipe diameter from the PIPE DIAMETER drop down menu.
4. Enter a design life in the DESIGN LIFE box.
5. Enter a pigging frequency in the ESTIMATED PIGGING FREQUENCY box.
6. Select a pipe class from the PIPE CLASS drop down menu.
7. The analysis results will now be displayed.
Once the estimating tool had been developed a case study was undertaken. The purpose
of the case study was to ensure the tool worked and to compare the results produced by
the tool with a past projects actual costs. The pipeline project selected was undertaken
by SunWater approximately three years ago. Reference to the project has also been
made in the Chapter Six summary (Section 6.5).
The project involved the construction of the Burdekin Moranbah Pipeline (BMP). The
pipeline starts at Gorge Weir, located on the Burdekin River and terminates in
Moranbah at an existing earth storage. The total length of the pipeline is approximately
220 km and is for the most part constructed using 800mm diameter Mild Steel Concrete
Lined (MSCL) pipe. The pigging infrastructure incorporated was constructed using 750
mm diameter DICL pipe work.
The pigging infrastructure incorporated into the design was similar to that described as
level three infrastructure as part of this project. In total there were 13 separate pieces of
pigging infrastructure constructed along the pipeline. The average total capital cost of
one piece of infrastructure was approximately $340,000 using a pipe class of PN35.
As stated, the BMP incorporates in total 13 pig insertion and/or removal structures. The
estimating tool only allows for ten over this particular pipeline length. BMP also
incorporates three pump stations along its alignment, not including the initial pump
station in the river. A pig cannot be pushed through a pump; therefore additional
intermediate infrastructure may have been required to work around the three subsequent
pump stations. This accounts for the three additional structures.
To test the estimating tool the following details were entered as per the series of steps
described in Section 7.2:
201-225km (length);
750mm (diameter);
20 years (design life);
1 event per year (pigging frequency);
PN35 (pipe class).
The results output by the estimating tool are shown in Figure 7.3.
It is the level three infrastructure results that are of interest for this case study. The
estimating tool shows the total cost of the infrastructure for this pipeline as just under
$6,200,000. As shown this is made up of a $5,570,000 capital investment and $630,000
in operational costs. Operational costs of the infrastructure are ignored for the purpose
of this case study. BMP has never been pigged and therefore actual costs are not known
for comparison.
As previously discussed the estimating tool allows for a particular number of structures
along a pipeline based on its length. In the case for the BMP ten structures have been
allowed for. With the total capital investment being $5,570,000 the cost of each
individual structure is approximately $560,000. This is quite a bit higher than the
average actual cost of the BMP structures. There are a number of factors that need to be
considered:
inflation;
Actual costs of the BMP structures were determined approximately three years ago, so
inflation needs to be considered. Assuming an inflation of 3.5% per annum (based on
CPI) over the last three years the actual cost of the BMP structures would now be closer
to $400,000. Adding on the ten percent contingency that is included in the estimate
produced by the estimating tool, brings the actual cost of the BMP structures up to
approximately $440,000.
The other two factors are hard to put a dollar figure on. The thrust block design, as far
as the estimating tool is concerned assumes the pipeline is operating at the capacity of
the pipe class, which in reality would generally not be the case. The final arrangement
of the BMP structures varies, with some only including one isolation valve. Finally,
during the past three years upgrades have been required on all BMP pigging
infrastructure. The value of those upgrades is set at approximately $30,000 per
structure.
Taking all of this into consideration the relative cost determined by the estimating tool
is very close to the actual costs experienced during construction.
7.4 Summary
The final part of the project developed the outputs. Essentially this consisted of two
items, a pigging infrastructure standard and an estimating tool. The standard set out the
results of the first two parts of the project in a formal document. This document can
now be used as a guide in the conceptual and/or preliminary design stages of a pipeline
project. The estimating tool was designed to supplement the pigging infrastructure
standard. It provides the user of the standard with more flexibility in their options.
A case study was then undertaken to test the accuracy of the estimating tool. A pipeline
owned and operated by SunWater was adopted for the case study. The particular
pipeline had been constructed approximately three years ago. Detailed construction
costs were available for the infrastructure on this pipeline. The case study did not
consider operational costs. This case study proved the tool to be quite accurate, at least
in its capital investment analysis.
SunWater have been and will continue to be involved in the design, construction and
operation of major water supply pipelines. A major part of that design and operation is
the pigging process and its associated infrastructure. To date, SunWater do not have any
guidelines on the design of pigging infrastructure in a pipeline design. This project
sought to create a standard, complete with a supporting estimating tool, which would
assist in optimising the design of pigging infrastructure in future pipeline projects
undertaken by SunWater.
Research was conducted into current pigging practices within the water industry. That
research included and focused on the infrastructure that is used as part of the process.
To further refine the research, a survey was conducted incorporating a number of people
involved in pigging operations. The survey gathered valuable feedback on the
performance and safety of the infrastructure in current practice. From this research three
standard arrangement drawings were drafted, these three drawings representing the
three levels of infrastructure to be adopted for this project.
Each of the three levels of infrastructure established were analysed based on their
associated capital and operational costs. The analysis determined the total cost of each
level of infrastructure, for two pipe classes over a range of pipeline diameters (375 mm
750 mm). Results of this analysis show the benefits required from the pigging process
for each level of infrastructure to be justified in its incorporation in a pipeline design
(Table 8.1 and 8.2).
The design of pigging infrastructure based on the financial benefits derived from the
pigging process will help ensure all capital investment and subsequent operational costs
are suitably justified.
8.1 Recommendation
It is also recommended that during detailed design of any pigging infrastructure, new
technology for pig launching and/or receiving, as discussed in Chapter Three, be
investigated. Use of such technology may reduce both capital and operational costs.
Again, all detailed designs need to be subject to the risk management process set out in
SunWaters WHS Management System.
There are several issues or factors related to this project that require further work:
As discussed in Section 1.3, there are pipelines currently owned by SunWater that have
never been pigged, regardless of whether or not they have the infrastructure available to
do so. This led to the requirement for two investigations within SunWater, the first of
which is stated below:
Investigate the benefits derived from the pigging process to determine, on a pipeline by
pipeline basis, if and when the process itself and hence the infrastructure should be
considered in design.
Alternatively, if it was determined that the process would be of some benefit, the results
of this project will assist in establishing the infrastructure arrangement best suited to a
particular design. That is not to say that the only consideration should be the results of
this project. All options need to be considered. There exist several alternatives to the
pigging process that do not require any form of infrastructure:
adopt a larger pipe size to account for any reduction due to biofilm build up;
install pumps possessing a greater range of operating efficiency;
design the pipeline for a higher flow rate than will be required.
This project assumes a pigging frequency of one event per year. There is no science or
reasoning behind this assumption other than within SunWater that seemed to be the
most common approach. It is recommended that a tool needs to be developed that can
estimate the frequency a particular pipeline will need to be pigged. This information can
then be entered into the estimating tool developed as part of this project. Ultimately this
will give results that are much more accurate for the particular pipeline design being
undertaken.
Finally, the development of a number of design aids would be useful. The design aids
would assist in further streamlining the pigging infrastructure design process, not only
at the conceptual and/or preliminary stage of a pipeline project, but in detailed design as
well. Design aids to assist with the calculations involved in the following list would be
very beneficial:
9.0 References
Clark, B 2003, Pigging Today Is A Mature, Sophisticated Science At Last, Pipeline &
Gas Journal, vol. 230, no. 8, pp. 44-48.
Fisher, H 1998, Pipeline Design Essential In Making Pigging Plans, Pipeline & Gas
Journal, vol. 225, no. 8, p. 55.
James Hardie & Coy. Pty. Limited 1985, Hardies Textbook of Pipeline Design, James
Hardie & Coy. Ptd. Limited, Australia.
Knapp Polly Pig Inc 2001, Knapp Polly Pig Inc, Houston, Texas, viewed 23 June 2010,
<http://www.pollypig.com/>.
Kozel, T 1997, Design Considerations For Subsea Pig Launching, Pipeline & Gas
Journal, vol. 224, no. 8, p. 63.
Quarini, J & Shire, S 2007, A Review Of Fluid-Driven Pipeline Pigs And Their
Applications, Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, vol. 221, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
SunWater 2005, Swab Structure on the Burdekin Moranbah Pipeline, SunWater, Ayr.
Tyco Flow Control Asia Pacific Group 2008, Ductile Iron Pipeline Systems Design
Manual, 5th edn, Tyco Water, Australia.
Warriner, D 2008, Considerations In Pig Trap Design, Pipeline & Gas Journal, vol.
235, no. 8.
SPECIFICATION
APPENDIX B
BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE
Commercial in Confidence Infrastructure Development
Management Systems
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation:
Pipeline Name:
Pipeline Location:
Pipeline Age:
Operator/s:
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES
Commercial in Confidence Infrastructure Development
Management Systems
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date: 10/06/2010
Time: 4pm
Organisation: BMA
Pipeline Name: Bingegang Pipeline
Pipeline Location: Peak Downs Mine
Pipeline Age: 35 Years
Operator/s: Rob Alford
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
20 years.
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Every two years.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Shutdown pumps Drain section of pipeline and insert pig Close off consumer off-takes
before pigging and flush after Start pump to push pig through Track pig Receive pig and
flush line until water clears.
8-10km section of pipeline each day.
Run pipeline line overnight and pig during the day.
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
High density foam pig (Red Bear).
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Pig entire Bingegang pipeline over 15 days (150km in total).
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Crew of five people, two vehicles with generators.
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Whole process.
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Swab pits installed every 4km, only use every second one.
Confined space. Need recovery plan for injury. Fall hazard. Had vertical ladder, had to
change them to 70 incline.
Facilities are adequate.
Some pits too close to ground and fill with local rain.
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
Dirty water.
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation: SunWater
Pipeline Name: Burdekin Moranbah Pipeline
Pipeline Location: Collinsville/Moranbah
Pipeline Age: 4 Years
Operator/s: Tony Buckingham/Geoff Renton
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
More than 30 years combined.
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Never been pigged.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation: SunWater
Pipeline Name: EWP Eastern Extension
Pipeline Location: Moranbah
Pipeline Age: 5 Years
Operator/s: Geoff Renton
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Never been pigged.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation: SunWater
Pipeline Name: Eungella Water Pipeline
Pipeline Location: Collinsville/Moranbah
Pipeline Age: 14 Years
Operator/s: Tony Buckingham/Geoff Renton
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
More than 30 years combined.
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Never been pigged.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date: 30/07/2010
Time: 12pm
Organisation: SunWater
Pipeline Name: Newlands Pipeline
Pipeline Location: Collinsville
Pipeline Age: 27 Years
Operator/s: Tony Buckingham
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Done last month. Last time it was done before that was about ten years ago.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Always done by contractor.
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
Relatively clean water.
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation: Water Corporation WA
Pipeline Name: Collector Bore Main
Pipeline Location: Perth
Pipeline Age: 40 Years
Operator/s: Merzuk Hodzic
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
30 years.
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Every year.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Done in maintenance.
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Sponge with plastic wrap.
Some 0.6m long, other 1m long. Varies depending on 90 bends.
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Depends on section. One week to do 10km section.
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Crane or hiab.
Four people minimum.
One vehicle.
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Whole process for all.
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Confined space. Half a day to launch pig because of WHS paper work.
Operation setup ok.
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Ramps or stairs to eliminate confined space.
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
In between.
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation: Water Corporation WA
Pipeline Name: Perth Kalgoorlie Pipeline
Pipeline Location: Perth
Pipeline Age: 107 Years
Operator/s: Scott Miller
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
11 years.
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Never been pigged.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date: 30/07/2010
Time: 1pm
Organisation: Flomax
Pipeline Name: Newlands
Pipeline Location: Collinsville
Pipeline Age: 27 Years
Operator/s: Contractor
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Pipeline pigged in sections.
New pig for each section.
Travels at 0.5m/s.
Use a less dense pig first to get blue print of pipeline. If necessary then use heavier pig.
If line done in one go then heavier more durable pig used.
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Used an RCC (Red Criss Cross) pig. Light density foam.
Others include RBS (Red Bear Squeegy) or steel pig with poly flanges (modular pig).
PIG Polyethylene Intelligence Guidance System
Type and density of pig depends on pipeline.
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
3 days working 24 hours a day. Two 12 hours shifts. Depends on economics and water
availability.
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
3 people per shift. One controller and two trackers.
4WD backhoe.
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Whole process.
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Not very good. No dismantling joint or gibault joint for removal of spool. Straub or gibault
are the best.
Roll out spool better as long as it can be fully rolled out.
Above ground ok as well. Have used Y launcher.
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation: SunWater
Pipeline Name: EWP Southern Extension
Pipeline Location: Moranbah
Pipeline Age: 4 Years
Operator/s: Geoff Renton
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Never been pigged.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
DISCUSSION / OUTCOMES
ENG4111/2 Research Project Questionnaire
Date:
Time:
Organisation: SunWater
Pipeline Name: Stanwell Pipeline
Pipeline Location: Rockhampton
Pipeline Age: 18 Years
Operator/s: Jim Barry
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 1 How many years experience do you have in the operation of water pipelines,
specifically in pipeline pigging?
20 years.
Item 2 How often do you pig the pipeline?
Varies, once or twice a year.
Item 3 Can you summarise the process you go through to pig the pipeline?
Pump overnight Isolate next morning and drain section of pipe at start Remove spool,
insert pig and reinstate spool Prime line with bypass valve Lift isolation and begin
pumping Whole line done in one go Pump pig until just before receiver Stop pumping
Remove catcher spool piece and restart pumping Once pig exits continue pumping until
water clears.
Item 4 What type/s or model of pig do you use?
Metal pig with urethane discs, discs replaced each time. Unfavourable due to potential
damage to lining.
Criss cross pig not as effective.
Item 5 How long does it take to pig the pipeline (days/hours)?
One day (operation itself only).
Item 6 What resources are required to pig the pipeline (human, plant/machinery) and what
roles do they play in the process?
Four people.
Three vehicles.
Franna crane.
Discussion / Outcomes
Item 7 How much involvement does each of the resources have (the whole process, half
the process etc.)?
Everything for whole process, bar crane. Crane only half of the day.
Item 8 What are the design and safety issues associated with the pigging facilities?
Vehicle access is good. Power line over one of the pits.
Risks require assessment to done effectively.
Confined space.
Item 9 What are the design and safety benefits associated with the pigging facilities?
Definitely required on this pipeline.
Item 10 How would you describe the water quality before it enters the pipeline clean,
dirty or in-between?
Generally clean.
Example:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Project Data:
Soil Bearing
Location TYPE Test Head (m) Invert Elevation (m) DN Angle (Deg) Height Width
q (kPa)
0 VTB 100 200 0.00 375 45 1575 1375
1 VTB 100 200 0.00 450 45 1650 1450
2 VTB 100 200 0.00 500 45 1700 1500
3 VTB 100 200 0.00 600 45 1800 1600
4 VTB 100 200 0.00 750 45 1950 1750
VerticalAB
REQD BEARING
Test Invert Total DESIGN ACTUAL ANGLE SECTION Reqd Conc Reqd TOTAL VOLUME Moment Max
Chainage TYPE q DN THRUST DEPTH WIDTH BEARING Perp Force LENGTH (ONE
Head Elevation Head BASIS DIAMETER AREA Volume Length LENGTH CONCRETE arm Moment
AREA ARM)
(m) (kPa) (mm) m kN (mm) (mm) m3/m m2 m3 m kN m (m) (m3) m kNm
0.0 VTB 200 0 200 100 B 375 426 45 214 1575 1375 2.02 2.1 0.0 0.0 197.617 1.4 2.9 4.5 0.1 29
1.0 VTB 200 0 200 100 B 450 507 45 303 1650 1450 2.19 3.0 0.0 0.0 279.912 1.9 3.9 7.0 0.4 102
2.0 VTB 200 0 200 100 B 500 560 45 370 1700 1500 2.30 3.7 0.0 0.0 341.493 2.3 4.6 8.9 0.5 177
3.0 VTB 200 0 200 100 B 600 667 45 524 1800 1600 2.53 5.2 0.0 0.0 484.459 3.0 6.1 13.4 0.9 412
4.0 VTB 200 0 200 100 B 750 826 45 804 1950 1750 2.88 8.0 0.0 0.0 742.961 4.2 8.5 22.1 1.4 1039
0.0 VTB 350 0 350 100 B 375 426 45 374 1575 1375 2.02 3.7 0.0 0.0 345.830 2.5 5.0 8.9 0.7 238
1.0 VTB 350 0 350 100 B 450 507 45 530 1650 1450 2.19 5.3 0.0 0.0 489.846 3.4 6.8 13.3 1.1 533
2.0 VTB 350 0 350 100 B 500 560 45 647 1700 1500 2.30 6.5 0.0 0.0 597.613 4.0 8.0 16.7 1.4 819
3.0 VTB 350 0 350 100 B 600 667 45 918 1800 1600 2.53 9.2 0.0 0.0 847.804 5.3 10.6 24.9 2.0 1684
4.0 VTB 350 0 350 100 B 750 826 45 1407 1950 1750 2.88 14.1 0.0 0.0 1300.181 7.4 14.9 40.4 3.0 3887
This Form is to be completed as per Standard WHS15 HSE Project Risk Management. The Project Manager is
responsible for ensuring that the WHS15 and associated processes1 and forms are completed. WHS49_F2 Safe
Design Review and WHS49-F1 Safe Design Checklist should be used at the design review stage.
Version Number2
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name ENG4111/2 Research Project
Project Description Desktop Research
Project Ref. No. / File No.
Scheme or Location
1
Includes WHS10, WHS15 & WHS49 as applicable to the project.
2
Used where the form is reviewed at various stages during the process.
SunWater WH&S Uncontrolled Copy
Page 1 of 23
Management Systems Validate Currency when Printed
WHS15_F1
Revision: 14
HSE PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT Revision Date: Jul 2009
FORM Approved by: M BPS
Owner: M BPS
This Form is to be completed as per Standard WHS15 HSE Project Risk Management. The Project Manager is
responsible for ensuring that the WHS15 and associated processes1 and forms are completed. WHS49_F2 Safe
Design Review and WHS49-F1 Safe Design Checklist should be used at the design review stage.
Version Number2
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name ENG4111/2 Research Project
Project Description Field Research
Project Ref. No. / File No.
Scheme or Location
1
Includes WHS10, WHS15 & WHS49 as applicable to the project.
2
Used where the form is reviewed at various stages during the process.
SunWater WH&S Uncontrolled Copy
Page 1 of 23
Management Systems Validate Currency when Printed
WHS15_F1
Revision: 14
HSE PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT Revision Date: Jul 2009
FORM Approved by: M BPS
Owner: M BPS
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Human Energy Lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling,
twisting
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Destabilised while walking, carrying
or working on equipment or platforms
including ladders
Fall while descending/ascending
Hit by falling, sliding, rolling object/s
Vehicular Energy Driving long distances fatigue WHS07
(Includes Mobile hazard
Plant)
WHS34 WHS34_F1
Driving in remote areas WHS34_F2
WHS34_F3
Driving on gravel or single lane
roads YES WMS Refer WMS
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Machine Energy Person my be pulled into, struck, cut
(Fixed, Semi- by, crushed
Portable or
Portable Damage from vibration and jarring,
Machine) kickback
Injury from fragmentation, explosion
N/A or fracture e.g. tools, power tools,
pressure vessels etc
Electrical Energy
Overhead wires WHS23 WMS01
N/A WHS24 WHS28_F1 WMS02
Underground services WHS28 WMS08
WHS22_F1
Working near possible live parts WHS21 WHS22_F2
(HV, LV) including batteries and WHS22 WHS23_F1 WMS01
UPSs WHS23 WHS23_F2
WHS23_F4
WMS04
Appliances, portable generators, WMS05
power tools, leads etc WMS06
WMS07
WMS16
Other electrical hazard WHS22 WMS18
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Thermal Energy Extreme temperatures (hot/cold) WHS33
environment, contact with hot
N/A objects, flammable atmosphere,
sun.
Fire/bush fire e.g. burning off activity
Hot work (welding, grinding etc) WHS27
WHS27_F1
explosion, fire, molten metal
Use of explosives
Chemical Energy Spill, leak of chemicals
N/A Explosion
Toxic gases/fumes/liquids/chemicals
refer to MSDS
Oxygen deprivation or engulfment
WHS26 WHS26_F1 WMS26
eg: confined spaces
Exposure or contamination from WHS38 WMS27
asbestos, lead, mercury or PCBs ACM Plan WMS28
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Noise (eg: from Short extreme exposure
machinery, tools,
construction Intermittent exposure
activities)
Continuous exposure
N/A
Pressure / Being struck by fluid under pressure
Potential Energy (chemical, fuel, refrigerant line)
Gas pipes under pressure
Handling industrial gases WHS44
Structural collapse, collapse of
construction materials eg tilt up,
precast materials, temporary
support structures; demolition work
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Susceptible Part Low velocity, e.g. dust in eye, lungs;
respiratory irritation
N/A
High velocity, e.g. grinding fragment
in eye, nail gun etc
Thermal, e.g. hot slag in ear
N/A Punctures
Animal hazards Snakes, spiders, wasps & bees YES WMS Refer WMS
Crocodiles WHS39
Aggressive animals
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Licences/
WH&S Hazard
High Risk Permits?
Category Potential WH&S Hazards SunWater SW & Other Communication, i.e.
*YES NO Activity - (see Further Details
Procedure Forms prestart meeting
WMS, ERP relevant
Std)
Job Name: ( Format: Job Location and Description): ENG4111/2 Research Project Work Order Number:
Site Supervisor (person in control on site): Aaron Elphinstone Work Commencement Date: June 2010
*Notes: Air-supplied breathing apparatus is only to be used by trained, competent personnel. No compressed air or liquid gas cylinders are to be taken into the confined space.
2. IDENTIFY THE HAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT. Consider and mark ALL hazards associated with the specific job tasks, the equipment that will be used
in the job, the infrastructure, and the surrounding work environment.
Air Pollutants Excavation/Engulfment Fish Stranding Noise Tools
Air Pressure Eye Irritation/Injury Gas (LPG) Overhead Wires Traffic Management Plan
Asbestos Fall hazard Heat/Cold Oxygen Low/High Underground
WHAT ARE ALL OF
Chemicals Fall from Heights Hydraulic Pressure Remote Area Vapours
THE POTENTIAL
HAZARDS? Confined Space Fauna bites/stings Lift/Pull/Push Restricted Access Vehicles / Pedestrians
Contaminated Air Fatigue Mobile Plant Slips, Trips, Falls Water/Drowning
Electrical Fire/explosion/ignition Moving Parts Skin Irritation Weather Conditions
Others (List) Sun Exposure Wildlife
3. DOCUMENT EACH JOB STEP, POTENTIAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH JOB STEP, AND RISK CONTROL ACTIONS. You must assess the risk and
document the Risk Rating prior to and after implementing risk controls. Do not proceed with the work if the risk rating, after the controls are in place, remains at
HIGH or EXTREME. Risk must be reduced to at least MEDIUM before proceeding. COMPLETE AND ATTACH A RELEVANT WORK PERMIT IF APPLICABLE.
Job Activities Required to Potential Hazards Initial Risk Control Actions Responsibility Residual Risk
Step Complete the Job (WH&S, Environment, Other) Risk for the Risk Rating
No. Rating Control Action (to be inserted by
Site Supervisor)
1 Field Research Body impact with infrastructure M Take care when moving around, watch where going ADE L
Slip, trip or fall M Take care when moving around, watch where going ADE L
Driving on gravel road H Drive to conditions, obey road rules ADE M
Other vehicles H Obey road rules, watch for other vehicles ADE M
Sunburn H Wear sunscreen, hat, long clothes and stay in shade ADE L
Drowning E Ensure you can swim ADE M
Wildlife H Avoid and leave along ADE L
List additional any additional activities and hazards and risk controls identified and applied during the job and improvements after the work is completed.
SIGN OFF FOR ALL PERSON INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE ABOVE TASKS (prior to starting the job)
I have completed an induction to the contents of this Work Method Statement and agree to apply the risk controls identified and any additional controls
identified during the job.
Does the proposed plant/equipment/structure currently exist elsewhere in SunWater? If Yes, contact the site and speak to site
personnel about potential WH&S hazards. List issues identified here.
Yes. Done.
Has similar plant/equipment/structure been designed or constructed by SunWater? If Yes, consult the design and construction
reports and the staff involved about lessons learned. List issues identified here.
Yes. Done.
Not Applicable
Applicable
Reference AS/NZS
Item Standard as Comments on Design Amendments or Proposed Design Amendments.
Relevant
MATERIALS
- Non-slip materials
POSITIONING
ENERGY SOURCES
MACHINERY/MOVING PARTS
- Anchoring to floor
Valves are supported by and bolted to floor.
- Failsafe/emergency shutdown/stop
buttons
- Labelling of controls
VENTILATION/AIR
CONDITIONING SYSTEMS &
LIGHTING
Does the design consider:-
- Air filtration
- Air changes
- Air distribution
- Pressure/Flow Pulsation
- Natural Frequencies
- Uncontrolled Motion
- Fatigue Failure
- Noise Levels
ACCESS/EGRESS/HEIGHTS
- Operation/operator - clearance
dimensions In pits 800mm minimum width clearance allowed.
- Maintenance/maintainer - clearance
dimensions
- Walkways/stairs/floors - treatment to
avoid slipping/tripping
- Emergency exits
- Lifts/emergency lowering
- Communications/Phones/CCTV
- Safety signage
ELECTRICAL
CONTROL/SWITCHGEAR
SYSTEMS
Does the design consider:-
- Control voltage
- Cubicle segregtation
- Isolation system
- Access provisions
- Heat load
- Warning devices
- Safety signage
- Cubicle sunshade
- Induced voltage
- Fire/explosion
TRANSFORMERS
- Isolation
- Surge protection
- Earthing
- Bunding
- Safety signage
- Security provisions
- Explosion/fire
- Disposal
LIFTING/MANUAL HANDLING -
TRASH RACKS, BAULKS, BH
GATES, PIT LIDS, GRATING,
Does the design consider:-
- Design, connection/disconnection of
lifting equipment & attachments for use
of lifting equipment
- Control of automatic disengagement
form lifting frame
FIRE
- Exit signs
- Extinguishers/signage
- Toxic by-products
- Fencing
- Autodialler systems
- Security lighting
- Intruder alarms
STORAGE AREAS
AMENITIES - If used as a
workplace
- Office space
- Toilets
- Drinking water
INSTALLATION
Hazardous substances
MAINTENANCE
Recertification of equipment
(lifting equip etc)
TRAINING
Familiarisation training
Hazardous substances
Training in Emergency
Response Plans
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATMOSPHERE
COMMUNITY
Displacement
Community
expectations/requirements
Regional
development/employment/
economic base
Cultural patterns community
services
SunWater reputation/image
Fish passage
Energy source/usage
PROPERTY
Access to infrastructure
Devaluation
Land use/soil
quality/productivity
WATER RESOURCES
Evaporation/losses
Surface runoff
Impact on groundwater
Release/flow requirements
Density
Productivity
Waste water
PUBLIC HEALTH
Fire hazard
OTHER
All agreed design amendments resulting from this HSE review and as approved by the Project Manager will be incorporated into
the design documentation prior to construction.
Design Managers Signature:
Date:
OPTIONS ANALYSIS
Infrastructure Type Issues Potential Negation of Safety Issues Cost of Negation
Level Two Access Stairs $48,000.00
Vertical Ladder With Fall Arrest System $12,800.00
Confined Space - No Rescue Davit Arm or Similar $20,000.00
Crane (PV) $9,749.43
Stairs $48,000.00
Spool Removal Crane (PV) $9,749.43
Roll Out Arrangement $1,000.00
Level Two
Stairs/Crane $57,749.43
Stairs/Roll Out $49,000.00
Ladder/Davit/Roll Out $33,800.00
Ladder/Crane $22,549.43
Rescue Gear
Davit Arm 2 x 4800 (1 per structure, 2 structures per pipeline)
Flush Floor Mount Sleeve 4 x 900 (2 per structure, 2 structures per pipeline)
Winch 2 x 3400 (1 per structure, 2 structures per pipeline)
Lad-Saf 4 x 1200 (1 per ladder install, 2 ladders per structure, 2 structures per pipeline)
Stairs
Additional Concrete In Pit 2 x 14000 (2 structures per pipeline)
Cost of Stairs 4 x 5000 (2 stairs per structure, 2 structures per pipeline)
Vertical Ladder
Cost of Ladders 4 x 2000 (2 ladders per structure, 2 structures per pipeline)
Crane
0.5 Days @ $170/hr 5 x 170 x 20 (1 event per year, 20 years)
APPENDIX J
Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL COST $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
Construction costs to include a 10% contingency.
Operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
Capital Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Operational Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Total Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Diameter (mm)
375 450 500 600 750
Notes:
Diameter (mm)
100 150 200 225 250 300 375 450 500 600 750
Straight (Standard 5.35m Long) $ 818.15 $ 1,235.94 $ 1,571.63 $ 1,865.71 $ 2,150.24 $ 2,600.08 $ 3,999.64 $ 4,684.52 $ 6,083.52 $ 7,904.81 $ 11,592.94
Flanged Tee
100 Branch $ 127.86 $ 182.45 $ 390.07 $ 489.20 $ 628.09 $ 778.33 $ 1,149.34 $ 1,875.83 $ 2,335.79 $ 3,011.12
150 Branch $ 215.24 $ 363.03 $ 507.76 $ 651.14 $ 756.91 $ 1,221.88 $ 1,940.50 $ 2,420.70 $ 3,120.77
200 Branch $ 421.56 $ 658.45 $ 794.53 $ 923.30 $ 1,224.62 $ 1,788.68 $ 2,438.13 $ 3,234.91
225 Branch $ 659.02 $ 799.03 $ 1,010.45 $ 1,256.74 $ 1,974.24 $ 2,433.07 $ 3,252.34
250 Branch $ 675.80 $ 1,057.69 $ 1,300.04 $ 2,029.34 $ 2,440.38 $ 3,509.88
300 Branch $ 885.85 $ 1,411.94 $ 1,992.23 $ 2,665.30 $ 3,439.59 $ 4,739.95
375 Branch $ 1,377.07 $ 2,269.44 $ 2,555.09 $ 3,353.56 $ 4,996.70
450 Branch $ 2,247.83 $ 2,619.76 $ 3,717.93 $ 6,650.88
500 Branch $ 2,152.03 $ 3,756.73 $ 7,591.05
600 Branch $ 4,235.81 $ 6,156.62
750 Branch $ 7,440.75
Gibault Joint $ 106.42 $ 132.25 $ 228.34 $ 313.56 $ 332.61 $ 445.71 $ 566.02 $ 1,291.14 $ 2,482.75 $ 2,778.89 $ 4,459.61
Flanged Bend
90 $ 104.55 $ 177.63 $ 356.53 $ 518.93 $ 478.89 $ 662.11 $ 1,352.90 $ 2,013.03 $ 2,559.59 $ 4,004.34 $ 6,182.19
45 $ 1,312.75 $ 2,211.53 $ 2,522.48 $ 3,618.40 $ 4,083.34
Blank Flange $ 30.98 $ 50.82 $ 78.52 $ 104.03 $ 113.64 $ 190.25 $ 491.45 $ 519.16 $ 940.73 $ 1,205.01 $ 1,853.34
Resilient Seated Sluice Valve $ 315.70 $ 510.86 $ 924.14 $ 1,142.26 $ 1,549.80 $ 2,077.88 $ 4,712.54 $ 8,349.29 $ 11,159.41 $ 13,213.25 $ 22,940.00
Spool Arrangement $ 1,235.94 $ 1,571.63 $ 1,865.71 $ 2,150.24 $ 2,600.08 $ 3,999.64 $ 4,684.52 $ 6,083.52 $ 7,904.81 $ 11,592.94 $ 17,686.68
Air Valve $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Diameter (mm)
100 150 200 225 250 300 375 450 500 600 750
Straight (Standard 5.35m Long) $ 899.97 $ 1,359.53 $ 1,728.79 $ 2,052.28 $ 2,365.26 $ 2,860.09 $ 4,399.60 $ 5,152.97 $ 6,691.87 $ 8,695.29 $ 12,752.23
Flanged Tee
100 Branch $ 140.65 $ 200.70 $ 429.08 $ 538.12 $ 690.90 $ 856.16 $ 1,264.27 $ 2,063.41 $ 2,569.37 $ 3,312.23
150 Branch $ 236.76 $ 399.33 $ 558.54 $ 716.25 $ 832.60 $ 1,344.07 $ 2,134.55 $ 2,662.77 $ 3,432.85
200 Branch $ 463.72 $ 724.30 $ 873.98 $ 1,015.63 $ 1,347.08 $ 1,967.55 $ 2,681.94 $ 3,558.40
225 Branch $ 724.92 $ 878.93 $ 1,111.50 $ 1,382.41 $ 2,171.66 $ 2,676.38 $ 3,577.57
250 Branch $ 743.38 $ 1,163.46 $ 1,430.04 $ 2,232.27 $ 2,684.42 $ 3,860.87
300 Branch $ 974.44 $ 1,553.13 $ 2,191.45 $ 2,931.83 $ 3,783.55 $ 5,213.95
375 Branch $ 1,514.78 $ 2,496.38 $ 2,810.60 $ 3,688.92 $ 5,496.37
450 Branch $ 2,472.61 $ 2,881.74 $ 4,089.72 $ 7,315.97
500 Branch $ 2,367.23 $ 4,132.40 $ 8,350.16
600 Branch $ 4,659.39 $ 6,772.28
750 Branch $ 8,184.83
Gibault Joint $ 117.06 $ 145.48 $ 251.17 $ 344.92 $ 365.87 $ 490.28 $ 622.62 $ 1,420.25 $ 2,731.03 $ 3,056.78 $ 4,905.57
Flanged Bend
90 $ 115.01 $ 195.39 $ 392.18 $ 570.82 $ 526.78 $ 728.32 $ 1,488.19 $ 2,214.33 $ 2,815.55 $ 4,404.77 $ 6,800.41
45 $ 1,444.03 $ 2,432.68 $ 2,774.73 $ 3,980.24 $ 4,491.67
Blank Flange $ 34.08 $ 55.90 $ 86.37 $ 114.43 $ 125.00 $ 209.28 $ 540.60 $ 571.08 $ 1,034.80 $ 1,325.51 $ 2,038.67
Resilient Seated Sluice Valve $ 527.22 $ 894.01 $ 2,467.45 $ 2,398.75 $ 3,285.58 $ 3,553.17 $ 6,550.43 $ 11,689.01 $ 15,957.96 $ 24,074.10 $ 40,859.25
Spool Arrangement $ 1,359.53 $ 1,728.79 $ 2,052.28 $ 2,365.26 $ 2,860.09 $ 4,399.60 $ 5,152.97 $ 6,691.87 $ 8,695.29 $ 12,752.23 $ 19,455.34
Air Valve $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Diameter (mm)
100 150 200 225 250 300 375 450 500 600 750
L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm) L (mm) W (mm)
Flanged Tee
100 Branch 356 178 406 203 484 241 508 254 534 267 610 305
150 Branch 406 203 484 241 508 254 534 267 610 305
200 Branch 484 241 508 254 534 267 610 305 738 356
225 Branch 508 254 534 267 610 305 738 356
250 Branch 534 267 610 305 738 356 814 394 890 432
300 Branch 610 305 738 356 814 394 890 432 1016 483 890 615
375 Branch 738 368 814 406 890 444 1016 495 1000 645
450 Branch 814 406 890 444 1016 495 1080 655
500 Branch 890 444 1016 495 1160 680
600 Branch 1016 508 1260 695
750 Branch 1450 725
Gibault Joint 180 180 180 180 180 230 230 230 230 230 300
Flanged Bend
90
45
Metal Items
375 450 500 600 750
Ladders $ 4,175.00 $ 4,250.00 $ 4,300.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,550.00
Handrails $ 2,268.84 $ 2,366.91 $ 2,544.78 $ 2,794.89 $ 3,074.40
Supports $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Roll Out Rail Arrangement $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Notes:
Handrails based on $105.00/m.
Ladders based on $500.00/m
Ladders include $1200 for fall arrest system.
375 450 500 600 750
Rate Unit Quantity Total
Labour
Four Men $ 4,000.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Supervisor $ 1,250.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Accomodation/Meals etc. $ 1,000.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Materials
Miscellaneous $ - lump sum 1.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
3
Thrust Blocks $ 1,500.00 m $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Supervisor Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $125/hr.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
750 375 450 500 600
Rate Unit Quantity Total
Labour
Four Men $ 4,000.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Accomodation/Meals etc. $ 800.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
APPENDIX K
Notes:
Construction costs to include a 10% contingency.
Operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
Capital Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Operational Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Total Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
APPENDIX L
Notes:
Capital costs to include a 10% contingency.
Operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
Capital Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Operational Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Total Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
APPENDIX M
Notes:
Construction costs to include a 10% contingency.
Operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
Capital Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Operational Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Total Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
APPENDIX N
Notes:
Construction costs to include a 10% contingency.
Operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
Capital Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Operational Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Total Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
APPENDIX O
Notes:
Construction costs to include a 10% contingency.
Operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
Capital Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Operational Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Total Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
APPENDIX P
Notes:
Construction costs to include a 10% contingency.
Operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
Capital Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Operational Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
Total Costs
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$0.00
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Diameter (mm)
APPENDIX Q
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following standard contains three alternate pigging infrastructure general arrangements. For
each arrangement the total cost of the infrastructure (capital and operational) over its design life
has been established. These costs relate the pigging infrastructure to the financial benefit of the
pigging process. A link between the infrastructure costs and the financial benefit of the pigging
process is required for justification that a particular level of infrastructures inclusion in a
pipeline design is warranted. This standard is to be used as a guide during the conceptual and/or
preliminary design stage of a pipeline project.
As stated, the standard incorporates three infrastructure general arrangements (as Appendices)
including a description of their basic operation. Total costs of the infrastructure over a 20 year
design life (capital and operational) have been tabulated. The standard lists all of the assumptions
the cost analysis is based on. Finally, there is a description of and instruction on how to use the
estimating tool associated with this standard.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Level One Infrastructure General Arrangement
APPENDIX B Level Two Infrastructure General Arrangement
APPENDIX C Level Three Infrastructure General Arrangement
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This standard provides a guide in the selection and design of pigging infrastructure at the
conceptual and/or preliminary design stage of a pipeline project.
The purpose of this standard is to set out differing levels of pigging infrastructure for
consideration during conceptual and/or preliminary pipeline designs. Costs associated with the
differing levels of infrastructure have been calculated and summarised in this standard.
The differing levels of infrastructure and associated costs are to be used to relate each level of
infrastructure to the financial benefit of the pigging process. This will assist in making informed
decisions on what pigging infrastructure to incorporate in a particular pipeline design.
1.3 BACKGROUND
The current practice of pipeline design within SunWater has no written guideline relating to the
incorporation of pigging infrastructure. As such, capital investments in pigging infrastructure
have never been justified and therefore have potentially been excessive. This standard brings
together set infrastructure arrangements, complete with their associated costs, which can be
linked to the financial benefit obtained from the pigging process. Use of this standard in
conceptual and/or preliminary pipeline designs should be done so as a guide only.
2.0 ASSUMPTIONS
Development of this standard has been based on a number of assumptions. Use of the standard
should take into consideration the following:
all infrastructure pipe work is Ductile Iron Cement Lined (DICL) with the only exception
being the spool arrangement where applicable,
operational costs have been determined based on a pigging frequency of one event per
year,
capital costs are based on a pipeline length of not greater than 25 kilometres. Essentially
this only allows for one pig insertion structure and one pig removal structure,
operational costs are based on a pipeline design life of 20 years,
detailed design costs of the infrastructure have not been taken into consideration, and
drainage of the infrastructure during the pigging process has not been taken into
consideration.
Three infrastructure levels are set out as part of this standard. Each level of infrastructure
increases the level of operability, although the associated costs also increase. All arrangements
are conceptual and should only be used as a guide in conceptual and/or preliminary designs. The
final arrangement will require detailed design, Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) and
operational reviews.
Level one infrastructure is not specifically designed for the pigging process. It is designed as an
add-on for another piece of infrastructure in the pipeline design. It consists of two isolation
valves and a dismantling joint. The arrangement itself will depend upon the infrastructure it is
being added to. The standard general arrangement drawing is included as Appendix A.
The basic operational procedure requires the two isolation valves to be closed. The dismantling
joint is then removed, after the isolated section of pipe work has been drained. A pig is inserted
into the pipeline and the dismantling joint is reinstated. The two isolation valves are then opened
ready to launch the pig into the pipeline. No enlargement in the pipe work is included to insert
the pig. There exists a requirement for the pig to be vacuum packed before it is inserted into the
pipeline. The packaging is then broken before the pig is launched, eventually being eroded as the
pig moves through the pipeline.
The general arrangement drawing also consists of an alternate arrangement. This is a slightly
more dedicated arrangement for the pigging process; however it is still designed to be an add-
on for another piece of infrastructure. For the costing purposes of this standard the alternate
arrangement is not considered.
Level two infrastructure is specifically designed for the pigging process. It consists of a series of
pipe fittings and valves. This particular arrangement is located in a pit below the natural surface
level. The standard general arrangement drawing is included as Appendix B.
The basic operational procedure requires the two isolation valves to be closed, followed by
draining of the isolated section of pipe work. The two couplings on either end of the pipe spool
piece are loosened and pushed to the side, after which the pipe spool piece is removed. This
arrangement does not include the facilities to roll the pipe spool piece to one side. It requires a
crane to be on site to lift the pipe spool piece out of the pit. A pig is then inserted into the pipe
spool piece, which is then reinstated. The two couplings are also then reinstated. Bypass pipe
work around the two isolation valves is used to fill the small section of line containing the pipe
spool piece. Once the line is full the two isolation valves are opened ready to launch the pig into
the pipeline.
This arrangement, being a pit, has a number of inherent WHS issues. The first issue relates to
access. Should a vertical ladder be included, as in the standard general arrangement drawing,
some form of fall arrest system will be required. The second issue relates to confined spaces;
namely rescue of an injured person from the pit. Given the only access is a vertical ladder, rescue
would be difficult. The issue of limited access for rescue is solved by having a crane (already on
site to remove the pipe spool piece) and rescue gear (harness, stretcher etc.) on site during
operation. An alternative to having a crane on site would be to install some form of davit arm.
All WHS issues need to be considered during detailed design.
Level three infrastructure is also specifically designed for the pigging process. It also consists of
a series of pipe fittings and valves. This particular arrangement, however, is located above
ground. The standard general arrangement drawing is included as Appendix C.
The basic operational procedure is almost identical to that of the level two infrastructure. It
requires the two isolation valves to be closed, followed by draining of the isolated section of pipe
work. The coupling on one end of the pipe spool piece is loosened and pushed to the side and the
flange on the other end is unbolted. The pipe spool piece is then removed. Unlike the level two
infrastructure, this arrangement does include the facilities to roll the pipe spool piece to one side.
A pig is inserted into the pipe spool piece, which is then reinstated. The coupling is also then
reinstated. Bypass pipe work around the two isolation valves is used to fill the small section of
line containing the pipe spool piece. Once the line is full the two isolation valves are opened
ready to launch the pig into the pipeline.
The main objective of this arrangement is the elimination of the inherent WHS issues associated
with the level two infrastructure. This is achieved by bringing the pipe work above ground. In
bringing the pipe work above ground, however, the issue of thrust is increased. Thrust issues are
solved using large concrete thrust blocks. For the purpose of this standard the thrust blocks have
been designed and costed based on the pipe pressure class. Thrust blocks were sized based on the
pipeline operating at full capacity for a particular pipe class. Further thrust block design will be
required at the detailed design stage of a project.
Each of the above three infrastructure arrangements have been designed and drafted for use in
conceptual and/or preliminary designs as a guide only. Detailed design needs to be undertaken to
determine the final arrangement. There are a number of factors detailed design needs to consider,
one of the main factors being WHS.
The final design of any pigging infrastructure arrangement will require a full WHS risk
assessment. Any risk assessment undertaken should consider the hierarchy of controls as set out
in SunWaters Safety Management System. There are key staff that should be involved in all risk
assessment activities, including but not limited to:
project management,
senior design engineers,
workplace health and safety officers, and
operations and maintenance staff.
The final arrangement drawings also need to be subjected to all checks associated with
SunWaters Quality Management Systems.
Table 4.1 illustrates the financial benefit (savings) required from the pigging process for each
level of infrastructure to be justified (refer SunWaters Pipeline Pigging Decision Support
System). The savings depicted in the table are based on a pipeline design using PN20 class pipe.
The savings required for each level of infrastructure over the given diameter range have been
determined considering both capital and operational costs.
Capital Costs
The capital costs, depending on the level of infrastructure, are made up of one or more of the
following:
pipe fittings and valves,
concrete (including reinforcement and laying),
metal item fabrication and installation, and
associated construction.
Operational Costs
The only material required for the pigging process is the pig itself. This cost is common across
the infrastructure range, therefore has not been included. Resource costs include:
labour, and
plant/machinery (where applicable).
Operational costs been calculated over the design life of the pipeline. They are based on their
Present Value assuming an interest rate of 6% per annum.
Table 5.1 illustrates the financial benefit (savings) required from the pigging process for each
level of infrastructure to be justified (refer SunWaters Pipeline Pigging Decision Support
System). The savings depicted in the table are based on a pipeline design using PN35 class pipe.
The savings required for each level of infrastructure over the given diameter range have been
determined considering both capital and operational costs.
Capital Costs
The capital costs, depending on the level of infrastructure, are made up of one or more of the
following:
pipe fittings and valves,
concrete (including reinforcement and laying),
metal item fabrication and installation, and
associated construction.
Operational Costs
The only material required for the pigging process is the pig itself. This cost is common across
the infrastructure range, therefore has not been included. Resource costs include:
labour, and
plant/machinery (where applicable).
Operational costs been calculated over the design life of the pipeline. They are based on their
Present Value assuming an interest rate of 6% per annum.
An estimating tool has been developed to supplement this standard. The estimating tool is used
to undertake the financial analysis of the different infrastructure levels. It allows for more
flexibility in the analysis than what was used to obtain the results in this standard. Three of the
assumptions (Section 2) have been eliminated from the analysis:
The estimating tool is a Microsoft Excel based tool that is simple to use. The following provides
a step-by-step guide on how to use the tool.
1. Open the estimating tool named Pigging Infrastructure Estimating Tool.xls and the
worksheet in Figure 6.1 will be displayed.
2. Select the pipeline length from the PIPELINE LENGTH drop down menu.
3. Select the pipe diameter from the PIPE DIAMETER drop down menu.
4. Enter a design life in the DESIGN LIFE box.
5. Enter a pigging frequency in the ESTIMATED PIGGING FREQUENCY box.
6. Select a pipe class from the PIPE CLASS drop down menu.
7. The analysis results will now be displayed as in Figure 6.2.
Total $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL COST $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
Total capital costs to include a 10% contingency.
Total operation costs to include a 10% contingency.
A rate of 6% has been adopted in the PV calculation.
PIPELINE LENGTH: km
PIPE DIAMETER: mm
PIPE CLASS:
Pipe Work 375 450 500 600 750
$ 3,999.64 $ 4,684.52 $ 6,083.52 $ 7,904.81 $ 11,592.94
Concrete/Reinforcement (Inc. Form Work/Pouring etc.) 375 450 500 600 750
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,462.50 $ 4,125.00 $ 5,450.00 $ 7,500.00
Materials
Miscellaneous $ 200.00 lump sum 1.00 $ 200.00 $ 277.00 $ 330.00 $ 436.00 $ 600.00
3
Thrust Blocks $ 1,500.00 m $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Supervisor Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $125/hr.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Pipe Work 375 450 500 600 750
$ 4,399.60 $ 5,152.97 $ 6,691.87 $ 8,695.29 $ 12,752.23
Concrete/Reinforcement (Inc. Form Work/Pouring etc.) 375 450 500 600 750
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,462.50 $ 4,125.00 $ 5,450.00 $ 7,500.00
Materials
Miscellaneous $ 200.00 lump sum 1.00 $ 200.00 $ 277.00 $ 330.00 $ 436.00 $ 600.00
3
Thrust Blocks $ 1,500.00 m $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Supervisor Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $125/hr.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Pipe Work 375 450 500 600 750
$ 19,969.72 $ 28,378.33 $ 38,474.10 $ 51,494.83 $ 70,401.55
Concrete/Reinforcement (Inc. Form Work/Pouring etc.) 375 450 500 600 750
$ 51,760.26 $ 55,804.75 $ 61,210.65 $ 70,147.60 $ 81,850.75
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 4 $ 10,000.00 $ 13,850.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 21,800.00 $ 30,000.00
Materials
Miscellaneous $ 1,000.00 lump sum 1.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,385.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 2,180.00 $ 3,000.00
3
Thrust Blocks $ 1,500.00 m $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Supervisor Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $125/hr.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Pipe Work 375 450 500 600 750
$ 21,475.74 $ 30,513.81 $ 41,431.68 $ 55,712.57 $ 76,261.14
Concrete/Reinforcement (Inc. Form Work/Pouring etc.) 375 450 500 600 750
$ 53,277.33 $ 57,475.38 $ 63,280.65 $ 72,469.60 $ 84,719.50
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 5 $ 12,500.00 $ 17,312.50 $ 20,625.00 $ 27,250.00 $ 37,500.00
Materials
Miscellaneous $ 1,000.00 lump sum 1.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,385.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 2,180.00 $ 3,000.00
3
Thrust Blocks $ 1,500.00 m $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Supervisor Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $125/hr.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Pipe Work 375 450 500 600 750
$ 26,451.41 $ 38,518.99 $ 50,211.12 $ 68,258.28 $ 90,177.30
Concrete/Reinforcement (Inc. Form Work/Pouring etc.) 375 450 500 600 750
$ 4,202.31 $ 4,655.55 $ 5,369.18 $ 6,512.55 $ 7,966.50
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 6 $ 15,000.00 $ 20,775.00 $ 24,750.00 $ 32,700.00 $ 45,000.00
Materials
Miscellaneous $ 1,000.00 lump sum 1.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,385.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 2,180.00 $ 3,000.00
3
Thrust Blocks $ 1,500.00 m $ 13,500.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 26,700.00 $ 40,200.00 $ 66,300.00
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Supervisor Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $125/hr.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Pipe Work 375 450 500 600 750
$ 28,896.55 $ 42,170.89 $ 55,032.23 $ 74,884.11 $ 98,995.03
Concrete/Reinforcement (Inc. Form Work/Pouring etc.) 375 450 500 600 750
$ 4,431.90 $ 4,909.24 $ 5,684.18 $ 6,867.30 $ 8,407.13
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day 7 $ 17,500.00 $ 24,237.50 $ 28,875.00 $ 38,150.00 $ 52,500.00
Materials
Miscellaneous $ 1,000.00 lump sum 1.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,385.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 2,180.00 $ 3,000.00
3
Thrust Blocks $ 1,500.00 m $ 26,700.00 $ 39,900.00 $ 50,100.00 $ 74,700.00 $121,200.00
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Supervisor Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $125/hr.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.
Plant
Franna Crane $ 2,500.00 day $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Notes:
4 Men Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $100/hr/man.
Accomodation/Meals etc. Rate - based on $200/night/man.
Franna Crane Rate - based on a 10 hour day at $250/hr including a dogman.