International Pipeline Conference Volume 2

ASME 1996

IPC1996-1882
PIPELINE PURGING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE

James E. Johnson, Steven J. Svedeman, Christopher A. Kuhl

Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

John G. Gregor
Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois

Alan K. Lambeth
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Houston, Texas

ABSTR ACT Nb - Number o f pipe bends

Gas purging, a process o f displacing one gas by another
gas, occurs on a routine basis in the natural gas industry when
pipelines are purged into and out o f service. In a project
sponsored by the Gas Research Institute and in cooperation
with the American Gas Association (A.G.A.) the purging
practices as outlined in the A .G A .s P urging P rinciples a n d
P ractices manual are being reviewed because many o f todays
pipeline purging operations occur under conditions not ad
dressed directly in the manual. The program focus is on the
purging procedures outlined in Chapter 8 o f the manual enti
tled G as Transm ission an d D istribution P ipes.
The technical objective o f the project is to develop an
understanding o f the scientific principles upon which safe,
practical purging practices can be based. Direct displacement
and inert gas slug purging operations are explained in terms
of dispersion and mixing parameters and their relationship to
the gas velocity. Field data is compared to the results of an
analytical mixing model. Computer software for planning
safe and cost effective pipeline purges has been developed.
Finally, recommendations for revising Chapter 8 o f the
A.G.A. manual are presented.
NOMENCLATURE
p - Fluid density [lbm/ft3]
Re - Reynolds Number
t - Purge time [sec]
V - Velocity [fit/sec]
x Distance from pipe inlet [ft]
INTRODUCTION
The Operating Section o f the American Gas Association
(A.G.A.) has become involved in the task of reviewing and,
as necessary, revising its Report, Purging P rinciples and
P ractice, Catalogue No. XK0775. While this report is in its
third printing (1990), it is in its second edition (197S) and
reflects the recommended purging guidelines appropriate
twenty years ago. This report is commonly referred to as the
Purging Manual and this terminology will be used in the
remainder o f this paper.
The A.G.A. Pipeline Committee has concentrated its ef
forts on Chapter 8, G a s Transmission a n d D istribution P ipes,
o f the Purging Manual and has identified the need for numer
ous revisions. In particular, the gas industry believes that
Table 8.1, entitled Purging Data for Inlet Control Proce
dure," may not be entirely sufficient for todays operating
conditions and blow down configurations.

Ai, A2 - Constants The Gas Research Institute (GRI) is supporting a re

C - Gas concentration [mole %] search program initiative in cooperation with the A.G.A.
d - Pipe diameter [ft] Pipeline Committee to develop improved procedures for
Dc Turbulent dispersion coefficient fft2/sec] pipeline purging operations. Southwest Research Institute
g - Gravitational acceleration [ft/sec2] (SwRI) was commissioned to conduct the research for provid
g' - effective gravity, defined in Eq. (2) [ft/sec2] ing the necessary technical basis for revisions to pipeline
L - Pipe length [ft] purging operations. The research program was initiated in
Lmi, - Length o f the mixed gas region [ft] November o f 1994 and is scheduled for completion in the

Copyright 1996 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 summer of 1996. The intent of this paper is to provide an
overview of an ongoing purging program and to the extent
possible, make preliminary recommendations for revising
Chapter 8 of the Purging Manual.
BACKGROUND
The goal of the A.G.A. Pipeline Committee, GRI, and the
gas industry is to improve industry guidelines for pipeline
purging practices (focus of Chapter 8). The GRI/SwRI re
search effort includes pipeline simulations and field studies.
Specific objectives of the research are:
Gain a better technical understanding of direct and inert
slug purging processes,
Provide recommendations for improved purging opera
tions supported by analysis and field studies,
Develop user-friendly personal computer (PC) software
for planning purge operations, and
Recommend revisions to Chapter 8 of the A.G.A. Purg
ing Manual.
SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICE
To better understand current purging practices, a nine
teen question survey was sent to 68 gas industry groups re
sponsible for purging operations. Thirty-six organizations
responded (53% return) and twenty-five company purging
procedures were provided. While it is impractical to present
all details found within the survey in this paper, key findings
are summarized below:
Pipe sizes involved in purging range from 0.5 inch to 48
inches in diameter. (The smallest pipe size considered in
the present study is 4 inch diameter.)
The typical length of pipe purged at one time ranged
from 600 feet to 40 miles. (In this paper, results are
shown for purges of 75 and 50 mile runs.)
The most common method for purging into service is the
direct method.
The air mover method is the most common method for
removing gas from the pipeline, especially for field work
involving welding operations. (Normally, a blowdown
will take place first to vent the majority of the gas. Con-
cons exist when venting in congested areas.)
The most common areas of concern are: vent noise (not
addressed in this paper), predicting time of completion of
the purge, purging of branches (not addressed in this pa
per), controlling pressure, and actually knowing when the
purge is complete. Other areas of concern were pipeline
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
liquids, odors, and obtaining supply gas (like nitrogen if
the inert slug method is used).
Nearly all of the company procedures incorporated Table
8.1 o f the A.G.A. Purging Manual as part o f their stan
dard purging procedures.
Numerous comments were received about Table 8.1.
Generally, the respondents were interested in the techni
cal basis o f the table and what to do when required to
purge systems outside o f the range o f pipe sizes and
lengths shown in the table.
LITERATURE SURVEY
Gas mixing processes and purging fluid mechanics de
scribed in Chapter 8 o f the Purging Manual are based to a
great extent on the work by Henderson (1941) and Cortelyou
and Curtis (1964). Hendersons (1941) paper introduces the
concepts o f gas stratification and turbulent mixing and the
report addresses factors involved in the formulation of a
moving barrier or slug of inert gas between the air and natural
gas. It is this paper where the purging velocity criteria o f 100
feet per minute seems to originate which is embedded
throughout Chapter 8. Henderson (1941) recommends that
when exhaust gas or nitrogen is to be used for the inert slug,
the velocity of the purge gases must not be below 100 feet per
minute and preferably be 200 feet per minute or higher. The
velocity should not be allowed to fall below 300 feet per mi
nute when carbon dioxide is the inert gas used. This paper
also discusses the effects o f turbulence, delays during purg
ing, and pipeline static pressure on the retention o f the slug.
The Cortelyou and Curtis (1964) paper extends the work
o f Henderson (1941). In this paper, an empirical model o f the
slug shortening process is developed based upon experimental
data obtained from tests with 12, 20, and 34 inch diameter
pipe. The curves found in the Purging Manual for slug short
ening have been extracted, from this paper. Conclusions
drawn by Cortelyou and Curtis (1964) are (1) purge velocities
less than 100 feet per minute in large pipelines allow stratifi
cation, (2) Reynolds number is not a satisfactory criterion for
purge velocity because large pipelines require greater purge
velocities than smaller pipelines, and (3) changes in horizon
tal or vertical direction because o f ells or return bends do not
destroy the nitrogen slug.
Marshall, et al. (1992) address the explosion hazard as
sociated with the direct purging method. Explosion pressure
generated on ignition o f a mixing zone was related to the ratio
of flammable volume as a fraction o f the pipeline swept vol
ume. While detailed explosion pressure data was not pro
vided, the authors comment that pressures developed on igni
tion o f the mixing zones formed under stratified flow condi
tions were considerably higher (by approximately a factor of
10) than those generated by ignition o f the mixing zone
foimed during wedge flow. Generally, for near atmos
 pheric pressure purges, the overpressures generated are in
significant when compared to the strength of most piping
systems designed for transmission and distribution pressures.
This would imply that the control pressures recommended in
Table 8.1 (typically less than SO psig) for transmission piping
are conservative with respect to potential pipe rupture with
respect to current British Standards, the authors have con
cluded that (1) current restrictions on the use of direct purging
are over conservative and unnecessary for purging operations
involving natural gas, and (2) the use o f direct purging can be
extended to longer pipe lengths and larger diameter pipes than
currently permitted without compromising safety, provided
that the purge velocity is equal to, or greater than, the critical
velocity required to prevent stratified flow. While the above
comments are directed toward the British purging standards,
the methodology does provide the basis for specific velocity
criteria. Simply stated, one should be flowing at a velocity
above the stratification velocity and if overpressure is a con
cern, one should not let the volume of mixed gas become
large enough to support detonation.
Perkins and Euchner (1988) discuss calculation methods
for sizing an inert slug. Dispersion in turbulent flow in con
junction with flammability limits are discussed. Major con
clusions and recommendations are: (1) slug sizing equations
should be derived for the flammability envelope for the par
ticular natural gas o f interest. In the absence o f detailed
flammability data, the slug-sizing function for ethane can be
used as a conservative approximation for most natural gases,
and (2) to minimize dangers associated with flammable gases,
the flowing pressure should be kept as low as possible.
Perkins and Euchner (1988) also point out in their paper that
the air and gas mixture zone should be less than about 60 pipe
diameters to eliminate possible detonation which can generate
considerable overpressures due to the generation o f shock
waves. As will be discussed later, software developed for
planning purges incorporates calculation procedures dis
cussed in this paper.
Woodhead, et al. (1971) provide information on the tur
bulent gas dispersion process which is important for predict
ing slug shortening. The slug shortening process occurs when
an inert slug (used as a buffer between natural gas and air) is
dispersed on each end o f the slug. Consequently, the air mi
grates through the inert slug toward the gas and on the other
end of the slug, gas migrates toward the air. Given sufficient
time, the air will meet with the natural gas. This process is
termed slug shortening.
SIGNIFICANCE OF LITERATURE REVIEWED
Based upon the literature review and upon our prelimi
nary analysis, the following observations were made.
Common purging practice employs both direct purge and
a slug purge method. A single dispersion model, ad
justed for gas specific properties, can be used to predict
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
the length of the flammable region for direct purges and
for predicting slug shortening for inert slug purging.
Generally, the literature addresses the fluid mechanics of
pipeline mixing in terms o f a key control variable which
is gas velocity. Unfortunately, when purges are per
formed in the field, a direct measure o f gas velocity is
usually not available. Pipeline velocity can be inferred
from pressure drop calculations, but the pipeline geome
try must be known. In effect, the purge pressures rec
ommended in Table 8.1 of the Purging Manual are suffi
ciently high so that turbulent flow exists and therefore the
purge meets an acceptable velocity criteria.
By supplying the upstream purging pressure suggested in
the Purging Manual the resulting flow velocities, for the
majority of the piping configuration, will be well above
that needed to minimize the effects o f axial dispersion,
such as stratification.
MODELING CONSIDERATIONS
Presently, a unified mathematical model is being devel
oped for calculating stratification velocity, combustible gas
mixture length, and purge time. The types o f purges ad
dressed by the model include direct purging and slug purging.
In this particular paper, only the topics o f minimum purging
velocity (to prevent stratification) and mixture length as ap
plied to direct purging methods will be discussed.
STRATIFICATION VELOCITY
When the density of the purged fluid (the gas to be
removed from the pipeline) is different from that o f the
purging fluid (the gas that replaces the purged fluid), the
purging flow velocity must be larger than some minimum
value for good results. This requirement can be understood
by examining the displacement o f one fluid by another in a
pipeline, as sketched in Fig. 1. Assume that the two fluids are
initially separated and stationary, such that the lighter fluid is
on the right The heavier fluid attempts to flow under the
lighter fluid, and the lighter fluid attempts to flow over the
heavier fluid. These flows are driven by the difference in
hydrostatic heads between the fluids. The velocity V o f this
gravity wave depends on the pipe diameter d and the den
sity difference pr P2. Experiments (Linden and Simpson,
1986) have found that:
The numerical factor depends on the geometry o f the pipe
cross-section and it should be noted that the shape o f the
wave is more complicated than that shown in Fig. 1. The
interface is spread over several diameters o f the pipe.
 G ra vity w a v e - sta gn an t fluids
W a v e suppression - turbulent flow
W a v e suppression - lam inar flow
Figure 1. Suppression of a gravity wave in a pipeline.
When there is an overall flow in the pipe, the gravity
wave interacts with the mean flow. If, as shown in the middle
sketch o f Fig. 1, the flow is to the right with a velocity equal
to V over the entire pipe cross-section, fluid 1 continuously
pushes the gravity wave in the upper half (fluid 2) back
towards the interface. Since fluid 2 is prevented from flowing
over fluid 1, there is no volume made available for fluid 1 to
flow under fluid 2 (conservation o f mass or volume). Conse
quently, propagation o f the gravity wave is suppressed by the
flow in a pipe (and stratification or channeling o f the fluids is
prevented), just as a shock wave in a compressible fluid can
be brought to rest by an oncoming flow that has a velocity
equal to the shock velocity. When the gravity wave is sup
pressed, the purging fluid displaces the purged fluid by push
ing it bodily towards the right. This explains why a minimum
purging velocity is needed to prevent channeling and to ob
tain good purging.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to have a uniform veloc
ity V over the entire cross-section since the velocity must de
crease to zero near the wall. Hence, near the wall, the gravity
wave speed is greater than the flow velocity, and some o f the
heavier and lighter fluids will leak past each other. (In
addition, a gravity wave is not exactly analogous to a shock
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Figure 2. Minimum purging velocity - direct purging.
wave, since it is an instability that cannot be completely sup
pressed; each fluid will always penetrate the other to some
extent even if the velocity is constant over the cross-section.)
The effects o f this leaking can be minimized by requiring the
flow to be turbulent. For one thing, a turbulent velocity pro
file more nearly approximates the desired uniform velocity
than does a laminar velocity profile. But more importantly,
when the flow is turbulent, any fluid that leaks into the other
fluid will be rapidly mixed with it; since this makes the inter
face less distinct, there is less driving force to propagate a
gravity wave. So for good purging, the purging velocity
Vpurge must be at least as large as the gravity wave velocity
V, but it m ust also be large enough to ensure a Reynolds
Num ber greater than 2500 in pipe flow.
There is evidence from purging experiments to confirm
these two conclusions. Figure 2 shows the results of a series
o f direct purging experiments by Marshall, et al. (1992) to
determine the minimum purging velocity that will prevent the
occurrence o f channeling (lighter fluid flowing over heavier
fluid). The bars in this plot indicate that the minimum veloc
ity was determined for each o f a series o f pipe sizes, and this
velocity was then recommended for a range o f bounding pipe
sizes. The figure also shows correlations o f a gravity wave,
Eq. (1), derived from the data so as to bracket the recom
mended velocities. It is evident that the required velocity is
proportional to Vd, as Eq. (1) implies. The mid-point o f the
bracketing correlations can be used as a purging specification:
Pg as
W = 0-7Vi7^" g ' = 2g ( 2)
air + P y
 Equation (2) accurately represents the data for d > 5
inches. For d < 5 inches, the experimentally-determined
minimum Vpurge was, however, substantially greater than that
predicted by Eq. (2). The reason for this is shown by the
Reynolds Number Re plot in Fig. 2 (Re was computed for
natural gas, which has a slightly larger kinematic viscosity
than air). For d < 3 inches, Re based on the Vpurge computed
by Eq. (2) is less than 1500, so the flow would not be turbu
lent In an experiment a larger Vpurge would have been found
to be necessary. For 3 < d < 5 inches, Re based on Eq. (2)
yields a mildly turbulent flow, but nonetheless Marshall, et al.
(1992) found that a somewhat larger Vpurge is also needed for
these pipe sizes. In fact, it appears that the minimum test ve
locity used in their work was never less than 100 ft/min.

With these results, a recommended minimum value o f

direct purging velocity Vpurge >s calculated from Eq. (2). If the
purge velocity is greater than 100 ft/min and if Re > 2000 the
answer is acceptable; otherwise, choose Vpurge so Re > 2000,
but if this value is less than 100 ft/min; then choose 100
ft/min.
The values o f computed from Eq. (2) are somewhat
larger than the minimum purging velocities found in another
test program (Cortelyou and Curtis, (1964)). Also the test
results shown in Fig. 2 may be conservative, because it is not
known if the data represents the true minimum velocity
needed to prevent stratification. The 0.7 factor used in Eq.
(2) could be reduced to account for a lower stratification ve
locity however, a better coefficient value is not known at this
time.
MIXED REGION LENGTH
When the purging fluid displaces the purged fluid, there
is a region where, because o f turbulence, the fluids become
mixed, as shown schematically in Fig. 3 by the backward-S-
shaped concentration profile. The length o f this region in
creases as the purging fluid travels down the pipeline. The
details o f how the mixed length increases in time are o f inter
est for several reasons:
When the length o f the mixed region approaches the
length o f the pipe, purging is by dilution rather than by
displacement, and this is an inefficient type o f purging.
Pipe Diameter, in
Figure 4. Length of mixed region.
A fraction o f the mixed region is combustible, and if this
fraction exceeds a critical length (depending on pressure
and temperature), a low-pressure deflagration can build
up to a high-pressure detonation. (An ignition source
must be present.)
It is known from the turbulent mixing theory that the
length o f the mixed region increases more rapidly in time as
the flow velocity increases. The increase is less than linear,
however, so for a given pipe length, the total length of mixed
fluids decreases as velocity increases - because the available
time decreases linearly with 1/velocity. Figure 4 (taken from
Marshal, et al. (1992)) shows this effect. The mixed length
approaches the total available length between the inlet and the
measurement location (210 feet) for the smallest velocity used
in these experiments (which is just about the smallest allowed
velocity from Eq. (2)), but for larger velocities the fraction of
the available length occupied by the mixed region decreases.
Consequently, the length o f the mixed region can be con
trolled by increasing the purging velocity.

These observations can be quantified by the turbulent

mixing theory. Turbulence is affected when the mixing fluids
have different densities (because the small eddies are acted on
by buoyancy forces as well as by inertial forces), but simple
relations are not available for this situation so mixing rela
tions for fluids having the same density are used here.
Perkins and Euchner (1988) show that the backward-S-shaped
concentration profile o f Fig. 3 is described mathematically
by:
Figure 3. Concentration profile for direct purging.

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (* Spurge )
^pur^c 2
2y f J
xV,purge (x + Spurge )
+TexP erfc
\ 2 ^
where erfc is the complimentary error function.
Equation (3) is a complicated expression, but it can be
simplified substantially when the value of De/xV purge is small
(as it usually is, except right at the inlet where x is smaller).
Therefore, die entire second part of the expression on the
right o f Eq. (3) can then be dropped as being negligibly small.
W ith this simplification, the mathematical relation between x
and t where the concentration remains constant at any desired
specific value is found from Eq. (3) to be:
----- O f1
' = constant
Here constant (= 2 X argument of erfc) is a positive number
that depends on the concentration of interest; the sign is
used for x locations behind the interface (jc < tVpurgf) where
the concentration is greater than 0.5, and the + sign is used
for locations ahead of the interface (x > r V ^ , ) . Thus, the
location of any specific value of purging gas concentration
travels down the pipe according to:
x = tVpurge constant 7 5 7
For example, a location where the concentration of the purg
ing fluid is 0.9 lb/lb-mixture requires the argument of erfc to
be = - 0.905; thus constant = - 2 X 0.905 = - 1.91; and
similarly, for a location where the purging gas concentration
is 0.1 lb/lb-mixture, constant = 1.91.
If >41is the value of constant where the concentration is
at the lower combustible limit and A2 the value where the
concentration is at the upper combustible limit, the length of
the combustible region included between these two limits
is found by using Eq. (5) twice:
Lmix=X2 - *1 = (tVpurge + A2 y f f y ) ~
[ ( 'W - a V * v ) ] = iA2 + A
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
0 .5
T T T
c
o I lengtn
(3)
o 0 .4 pupe htafoce locellen
o
u
T Purge Velocity
r O 1 9 7 H/min
0 .3
2D>
a
o> 0.2
c
JD
n
E 0.1
E
LL
0.0 L
0 50 100 150 200 250
Location of Purging Interface Down the Pipe, ft
(4)
Figure 5. Flammable length for direct purging.
Thus, the length of the combustible region increases as the
square root of time.
Since the interface is located at a distance down the pipe
equal to t V ^ ^ , the ratio of the combustible length given by
Eq. ( 6) to the total length o f pipe occupied by purging gas at
any time t is therefore proportional to 1N t. Figure 5 shows
how well this prediction agrees with experimental data ac
quired for a 22.6 inch diameter pipe (Marshall, et al. (1992)).
The plots give the ratio o f the flammable length to the dis
tance from the inlet to the interface location, for various
(5)
purging velocities as a function o f downstream location of the
interface. The plot indicated by the heavy line is a prediction
of this ratio (which, as stated above is proportional to 1N t)
for a velocity of 472 ft/min, with the proportionality constant
chosen to match the experiment at a point halfway along the
pipe. As can be seen the prediction agrees with the experi
ment fairly well. (The prediction is m ost in error for locations
near the inlet. The discrepancy is at least partly due to the
fact that the experimental data points correspond to the length
of mixture determined as the mixture passed by the measure
ment location; the measurements thus represent mixed lengths
over a time interval rather than at a specific discrete time, so
the error is most evident near the inlet where the time interval
is the greatest fraction o f the total time.)
The experimental data also show that the flammable
length increases at a rate considerably greater than Vr for the
smallest velocity o f 197 ft/min (the light solid curve). This
result is not surprising since the minimum velocity required

Figure 6. Turbulent dispersion coefficient for
straight pipes.
from Eq (2) to prevent stratification is 2S2 ft/min for a pipe of
this diameter. Since the fluids are probably stratified for a
velocity o f 197 ft/min, the mixing occurs over a much greater,
interface length than ju st the pipe diameter, and Eq. ( 6) would
not be applicable.
To use Eq. ( 6), for computing the length of the flamma
ble region, the upper and lower combustible limits must be
known so that A\ and A2 can be computed, and De must also
be known as a function o f pipe diameter, purging velocity,
viscosity, pipe roughness, etc. Figure 6 can be used to de
termine De. For CH 4, air, and N2, the Schmidt Number is ap
proximately one, and for Pe = 1, the data shown in Fig. 6 can
be correlated by the expression:
io^ . / w ,- .0 3 ) r l8( Re -1 0 0 0 Y
0.1 1000 J sensor system which normally operates below 1 psig was
(7)
e x p [-(lo g fle )u ] Re > 2 0 0 0
To be conservative, the value o f De should be computed using
the gas with the larger viscosity, since this will give the larg
est De. Bends in the pipe increase the turbulent mixing; their
effect can be accounted for approximately by B ischoffs
(1964) method to give an effective Deeff:
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
D^ = o . ( 1- 3 0 x ) +450l''"fiV> (8)
Nh = number o f bends
As an example, for a 250 feet pipe with d - 24 in, the
minimum Vpurgc is 250 ft/min. Hence, the interface reaches
the exit 60 seconds after purging starts. The turbulent diff
usion coefficient (Fig. 6) is about 1.75 ft2/sec for this d and
Vpurgt A\ + A2 = 2.5 to 3.0 for flammable concentrations, so
from Eq. ( 6) the length of the flammable region when the
interface reaches the exit is 26 to 31 feet. The flammable
length thus occupies 10% to 15% o f the pipe length, which
agrees fairly well with the data shown in Fig. 5.
FIELD TESTING METHODOLOGY & INSTRUMENTATION
Field tests were vital for obtaining a better understanding
o f the flow processes in a pipeline purge. Results obtained
from this data are used to verify and improve upon a com
puter model simulation which is under development. As will
be shown, the particular field tests conducted are useful for
confirming information on concentration profiles (Eq. 3).
However, all field observations to date were for velocity
conditions well above the stratification velocity and thus no
experimental data has been obtained from this study for an
accurate determination of the coefficient used in Eq. 2.
Field tests involve collecting pressure, velocity, and gas
concentration data from three locations along the pipeline
being purged. At the upstream inlet, a pressure gage is used
to acquire an accurate record o f the inlet pressure throughout
the purge. A t an intermediate location down the pipeline, a
probe is inserted into the pipe through an existing tap (pipe
line nozzle or standoff pipe with a flange) with a block valve
attached to the tap. A blind flange, modified with a 1
Swagelok fitting, is attached to the block valve and the probe
is inserted through the fitting into the pipeline. The Swagelok
fitting is tightened and the sample lines are attached to the
probe. The sample lines are fed into a instrumentation pack
age, which reads static and dynamic pressure, temperature,
and concentrations o f oxygen and natural gas from two verti
cal locations inside the pipe. The gas concentrations are
measured by two GMI Gasurveyor 11B sensors and the data
from these sensors are logged to a laptop computer. The gas
modified to operate at purging pressures up to approximately
100 psig. A t the blowdown vent, exit velocity and concentra
tion measurements are recorded by a pitot tube and a third gas
sensor. The concentration vs. time profile at the blowoff is
used to determine the amount o f slug shortening or growth of
the mixed gas region.
HELD STUDY
Table 1 and 2 are a summary o f the pipeline purges that
have been surveyed. A unique constraint on the field studies
 Table 1. Summary of pipeline geometry from surveyed purges.

Pipe Pipe Probe Blowoff Blowoff Blowoff Valve

Diameter Length Location From Diameter Length Diameter
# Date an) (Ft) Inlet (Ft) an) (Ft) an)
1 5/19/95 30 74659 N/A 10-6 55
2 7/13/95 20 43296 N/A 8 10 8
3 7/19/95 8 6800 N/A 2 10 2
4 8/8/95 10 26928 N/A 4 6 -

5 9/29/95 30 87806 4171 10 8 8

6 11/11/95 26 17200 13705 6 25 -

7 12/19/95 30 399168 N/A 8 7 6.8

8 12/20/95 30 284592 N/A 8 7 6.8

Table 2. Summary of data obtained from pipeline purging observations.

Mixed Length Mixed Length
Inlet Pressure Average Velocity At Probe At Vent Exit
r (PSD (Ft/Min) (Ft) (Ft)
i 50 1821 N/A 2730
2 27 3522 N/A 1110
3 20 1344 N/A 232
4 21 4062 N/A 846
5 50 4182 1901 2955
6 25 2100 224 289
7 2022 N/A 1889
8 2238 N/A 1865

is that tests were planned around ongoing purging operations
conducted by a number of gas companies. The field team was
not involved with the planning of these purges and they were
observers only; although, permission was obtained to use field
instrumentation.
The important information obtained from these purges is
average velocity and the length of the mixed region of natural
gas and air. The average velocity is determined using the
arrival time of the gas/air interface at the vent exit. The
mixed length of gas is calculated by taking the time for the
natural gas concentration to increase from 2% to 98%, and
multiplying this time by the average velocity in the pipeline.
Example calculations are provided from Purge #8. The
concentration profiles (Fig. 7) show that the gas/air interface
arrived at the vent exit in 2:07:08 (7628 seconds) after the
start of the purge. Dividing this time into the total pipe length
resulted in an average velocity of 37.3 ft/sec (2238 ft/min).
The mixed gas/air region passed the vent exit in 50 seconds
(2% to 98% natural gas concentration). Using the average
velocity of 37.3 ft/sec, the mixed zone length at the pipeline
exit was calculated to be 1,865 feet.
Aside from the average velocity and mixed gas length,
other significant information was gathered from the purge
observations. Figure 8 shows the inlet and exit pressures and
exit velocity for Purge #8. Note, that there was a steady in
crease in each of these values throughout the entire purging
process. The exit pressure and velocity maintained a steady
increase to a point where an abrupt change was observed,
which was caused by the change in properties of the passing
fluid upon the arrival of the gas/air interface.
Purge #8 is an example of a d irect purging operation
where air and natural gas were in direct contact The alterna
tive to direct purging is to use a slug of inert gas to act as a
buffer between the air and natural gas, called slug purging.
Purge #6 is a typical example of a slug purging operation.
Figure 9 shows the concentration profiles obtained by the
probe from an intermediate location along the pipeline. An
important point to note is that the oxygen and natural gas
concentration lines do not intersect, contrary to the direct
purge shown in Fig. 7. Consequently, no flammable mixture
was present in the pipeline. An initial amount of nitrogen
(5472 ft3) was introduced into the pipeline and the amount of
slug shortening at the probe location was approximately 24%
(down to 4134 ft3 of pure, unmixed nitrogen). The mixed gas

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Vent Velocity (ftfeec)
2:05.00 2:00:00 3:07:00 2:00:00 2:00:00 2:10:00
00000 0* 1:30 0:43:12 1.04:48 140:24 1:4800 20900 201:12 202:48 3: 14*24 30000
71m*From8Url ol Purge(htammite) TimeFromStartol Purge(hh:mm:ee)
Figure 7. Concentration profiles of oxygen and natural gas for Purge Figure 8. Pressure and velocity curves taken at the vent exit during
#8 (Direct Purging). The two profiles Intersect, signifying an oxy- Purge #8. The abrupt change In the exit data Is evidence that the
gen/natural gas mixture within the pipeline. gas/alr Interface has passed.
Cj3

0 1 2 3 4 8 8 7 8 8 10
TVne(mln]

Figure 9. Concentration profiles of oxygen and natural gas for Purge #6 (Slug Purging).
The two profiles do not Intersect, due to the presence of an Inert nitrogen slug.

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3. Example showing a portion of the Table 8-1 in
A.G.A/S Purging Principles and Practice
P urgin g D ata F o r In le t C on trol P ro ced u re
M inim um Inlet P ressu res Psig
_____________ (By Line Size)_____________

L ength O f 4 Blowoff Valve In le t 6 Blowoff Valve In let

Pipeline P re ssu re Psig Line Size P ressu re Psig L ine Size
(M iles) (Inches) (Inches)
6 8 10 12 12 16 18 20
1 8 8 11 18 6 11 14 21
2 12 11 13 20 8 12 15 22
3 16 13 15 21 10 13 16 23
4 19 16 17 22 11 14 17 23
5 22 18 18 23 13 15 18 24

Table 4. Example of a new pipeline purging table that included the gas flow rate,
average velocity, minimum purge pressure (to eliminate gas stratification), and
pressure that just causes choke flow in the blowoff vent pipe.
6 Blow off Valve
In let P re ssu re (Psig)
L ine Size (Inches)
L ength O f 12 P ipe 18 Pipe
Pipeline P ressu re Velocity Slug Vol. P ressure Velocity Slug Vol.
(M ile) (PSIG ) (Ft/Sec) (SCF) (PSIG ) (Ft/Sec) (SCF)
1 6 65.8 159 14 52.5 527
minimum 0.02 3.0 0.04 3.6
choked 43.6 93.8 31.2 53.9
2 8 58.2 240 15 50.4 760
minimum 0.03 3.0 0.05 3.6
choked 55.7 81.1 33.7 51.9

Figure 10. Pipeline geometry used in software for predicting purge time.

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 length for this situation is defined as the mixture o f natural
gas with nitrogen between 98% and 2% natural gas.
CHANGES TO STANDARD PURGE TABLES
Guidelines for planning a pipeline purge are provided in
the A.G.A. Purging Manual. Table 8-1 in that document
provides purge pressures based on the pipeline diameter and
length and the pipeline blow off valve diameter. The sug
gested purge pressures are intended to provide an average
purge velocity o f 2 minutes per mile (44 ft/sec). Table 3
shows a portion o f Table 8-1.
In addition to improving the accuracy o f Table 8-1, the
research will result in more information for the revised purge
tables. Table 4 shows an example o f the type o f calculations
that can be added to the new purging tables. This new table
includes the average velocity and volumetric flow rate that
results from the recommended purge pressure when applied
to a typical piping geometry (inlet pipe, pipe to be purged,
and the purge pressure that will cause choking in the blowoff
vent with or without a value). Two additional lines have been
added to indicate the minimum allowable purge velocity and
the purge pressure that will cause choking in the blow off vent.
The minimum allowable purge pressure is based on the mini
mum velocity necessary to eliminate gas stratification. Pres
sures higher than the minimum pressure will provide suffi
cient driving force to bring about a turbulent flow necessary
for effective purging.
SOFTWARE FOR PURGE PLANNING
Software is being developed to aid in planning pipeline
purges. The program calculates the purge time based on the
users pipeline geometry and the purge pressure. A user en
ters the information listed in Fig. 10 into the program to de
fine the pipeline geometry. The user also specifies the gases
used in the purge and the number and type of fittings in each
section of the piping (inlet piping, pipeline, and blow off pip
ing). The software then calculates the purge time, average
velocity, and the gas flow rate for different purge pressures.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the work conducted to date, several conclu
sions have been drawn.
1. By using the recommended control pressures indicated in
Table 8.1 o f the current A.G.A. Purging Manual, the re
sultant pipeline velocities will ensure that gas stratifica
tion will not occur for the applicable piping configura
tions (a straight pipe with inlet and outlet risers). How
ever, the resultant velocities are generally higher than re
quired for efficient purging reasons and, in many cases,
the blow off vent will experience choked flow.
2. T h e range o f pipe sizes used in T able 8.1 should at least
include sizes up to 42 inches in diameter and piping
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/19/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
lengths up to at least 20 miles to cover typical distance of
purge in transmission piping.
3. The mathematical model o f the S-shaped concentration
profile is applicable for calculating slug shortening (inert
slug purge) as well as the length o f the flammable mixing
region when air and natural gas are mixed during a direct
purging process.
4. Table 8.1 should be modified to show the minimum pres
sures needed to avoid stratification and perhaps a step-
by-step calculation procedure should be included as a
supplement to the guideline.
5. Software suitable for execution on a personal computer
would be beneficial to those responsible for planning
purge operations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Frank Dodge
for his critical assessments o f the literature and for his many
technical contributions to the purging program.
W e also want to acknowledge the respondents to the sur
vey, the gas companies that made the field testing possible,
and the A.G.A. Pipeline Committee.
REFERENCES
Bischoff, K.B., 1964, An Example o f the Use o f Com
bined Models: Mixing in a Tabular Reactor with Return
Bends, A.LCh.E. Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 584-598.
Cortelyou, J.T., and H.M. Curtis, 1964, Safe and Eco
nomical Purging Practices, A.G.A. Proceedings.
Marshall, M.R., Cleaver, R.P., and C.L. Hinsley, 1992,
Pipe Purging Operations, 1992 International Gas Research
Conference
Henderson, E., 1941, Com bustible Gas M ixture in Pipe
Lines, PCGA Proceedings, Vol. 32.
Linden, P.F., and J.E. Simpson, 1986, Gravity-driven
Flows in a Turbulent Fluid, Journal o f Fluid Mechanics, Vol.
172.
Perkins, T.K., J.A. Euchner, 1988, Safe Purging of
Natural Gas Pipelines, SPE Production Engineering, pp.
663-668.
W oodhead, J.R., White, E.T., and D. Yesberg, 1971,
Prediction o f Effective Axial Dispersion in Transitional and
Turbulent Flow, The Canadian Journal o f Chemical Engi
neering, Vol. 49, pp. 695-698.