# Presentation: 126902

## 
National Energy Technology Laboratory 
U. S. Department of Energy
Project Kickoff Presentation
December 16, 2003

Ken H. Green
Principal Investigator

- National Energy Technology Laboratory
- U. S. Department of Energy
- Project Kickoff Presentation
- December 16, 2003
- Ken H. Green
- Principal Investigator

- Development of a Remote External Repair Tool for Damaged or Defective PE Pipe

**Notes:**
Good Morning, it is a pleasure to be here with all of you today
My name is Ken Green and I am the Principal Investigator for the project to develop a remote external repair for damaged or defective PE pipe

## Executive Summary

- Project Objectives
- Develop remote external repair tool for damaged or
- 	defective PE gas pipe (i.e. rupture, puncture, gouge)
- Demonstrate functionality & test  performance of        engineered prototype
- Project Participants
- DOE NETL
- Timberline Tool
-  Oregon State University
-  KeySpan Energy
- Project Schedule
- Phase 1:  18 months
- Phase 2:  12 months

- Remote External Repair Tool for PE Gas Pipe

**Notes:**
This project will develop innovative technology to externally repair damage or defects on PE pipe and demonstrate the functionality and test the performance of the engineered prototype repair tool
Innovation employs a mechanical tool to apply a patch that is chemically bonded to the damaged PE pipe
The tool will be designed to repair ruptures, punctures, and gouges in PE pipe
Timberline Tool has a cooperative agreement with the Department of Energy/National Energy Technology Laboratory to develop this tool
We assembled a team consisting of
Chemical Engineers from Oregon State University to
Design and fabricate the chemical process  that is required for the repair patch
They will also be responsible for performance tests on the repaired PE pipe samples
 KeySpan Energy will perform field tests during Phase 1 and Phase 2
Project Schedule
Phase 1 – 18 months
Phase 2 – 12 months

## Background

- 50% Increase in Demand    =   Increase in Miles of Pipe

- Forecast

**Notes:**
Gas consumption will grow as much as 50% over the next 20 years
To meet this demand, the number of miles of distribution and transmission PE pipe, as well as the size of the pipe will increase.  Figures 1 & 2 illustrate this trend as reported by the U.S. Department of transportation.

## Background

- Increased demand for natural gas places increased demand on the existing pipeline system
- Need for improved tools for construction, maintenance and repair of damaged or defective plastic pipes
- Preference for cost effective and efficient tools to facilitate repair through “keyhole” excavation access

- Maintaining a Growing & Aging Infrastructure

**Notes:**
This increase in the demand for natural gas places an increased demand on the existing pipeline system.  In order to maintain a growing and aging infrastructure, it is critical to develop tools to quickly, safely, and efficiently repair damaged or defective pipe.
The Department of Energy & National Energy Technology Laboratory in their Sept 2000, Natural Gas Infrastructure Reliability report detailed a 
Need for improved tools for
Construction
Maintenance 
Repair of PE pipe that makes up the majority of America’s natural gas distribution network.
The NETL report cites a preference for cost effective and efficient tools to facilitate repair through “keyhole” excavation access
The current delivery system consists of 650 thousand miles of underground plastic piping that has been in service for over 30 years.
While the technology of the pipe has advanced over the last 30 years, the tools used for repair and maintenance of the pipeline require further development
It is critical to develop tools to quickly, safely, and efficiently repair damaged or defective PE pipe

## Where Solutions Are Heading

- Access and repair with minimal intrusion

-      Benefits:
- Minimal excavation & surface disruptions
- Less disruption to traffic & commerce.
- Increased safety
- Environmental savings

- “Keyhole” Access

**Notes:**
Keyhole excavation is being used for access and repair of pipe systems with minimal intrusion
Keyhole benefits include:
Minimal excavation and surface disruption
Time and pavement repair
Less disruption to traffic
Increased worker safety – out of trench
Savings not only to environment (less ground disruption) but also to company operating costs

## Remote External Repair Method

- Use keyhole technology to excavate the damaged area
- Encapsulate damaged pipe using remote repair tool
- Apply chemical repair patch

- Operation of Remote Repair Tool

**Notes:**
Timberline Tool is responding to the need for keyhole tools with this project to develop innovative methodology that will allow workers to externally repair damaged or defective PE pipe by applying a patch over the area of damage
The first step in this repair process involves keyhole excavation to expose the damaged area
The Damaged section of the pipe is then encapsulated by the remote repair tool and a
Chemical repair patch is applied

## Standard Repair Method  

- Excavate upstream & downstream from the damaged area
- Squeeze-off gas flow on both sides of damage
- Excavate at site of damage & cut out damaged pipe section
- Insert new section

**Notes:**
The Standard repair method requires
Excavations upstream and down stream from the ruptured section of pipe
It is then necessary to squeeze-off the flow of gas on both sides of the damaged or ruptured area
It is necessary to excavate at the site of damage, and then cut out the damaged section of pipe and
Insert a new section.
This procedure is time consuming and expensive

## Comparison of Repair Methods

- Improvements over existing technology

| Requires operators to 
work in the trench |  | Operators do not  
work in the trench  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Multiple excavations/ Multiple operations |  | One excavation/     
One operation |
| Not suitable for keyhole or confined space |  | Keyhole & Confined Space Accessible  |
| Time consuming and expensive |  | Significant time & labor savings  |

-       _**Standard Method            VS     Remote External Method**_

**Notes:**
The improvements of the proposed repair tool over the existing technology does not require
Operators to work in the trench.  The new repair tool operates remotely from the top-down – without the need for under pipe installation
Dramatically improves safety and repair procedures due to only
one excavation/one operation
Single person operation – lightweight and portable
Operates in difficult and keyhole situations
Time and labor savings are anticipated to be significant

## Benefits of Remote External Repair

- Safe for operator and environment
- Operates remotely from ground surface
- Keeps operator out of the trench
- Operates in keyhole openings - minimal impact to environment & neighborhoods
- Cost effective
- Faster repair time = substantial cost savings
- Repair performed at site without additional 	excavation
- Uninterrupted gas service

**Notes:**
Benefits
Safe for operator and surrounding environment
Operates remotely from ground
Keeps operators out of trench away from hazard
Keyhole accessible – minimal impact to surrounding environment and neighborhood (gas service not interrupted)
Cost effective Tool
Faster repair time equals substantial cost saving
Thousands of leaks can be repaired at a fraction of current cost for repair (3.5B/yr)
Maintenance and repair costs lowered – increased efficiency (KeySpan Energy estimated savings of 1M/repair or 500K/yr)
Repair performed at the site of damage – cuts down on excavation costs
Gas service remains uninterrupted downstream from the site of damage

## Scope of Work

- Project Objectives
- Develop remote external repair tool for damaged or defective PE gas pipe
-     (rupture, puncture, gouge)
- Demonstrate functionality & test  performance
-     of engineered prototype
- Design Goals
- Lightweight construction
- Top-down application
- Manual operation from ground level
- Operable in keyhole
- Effective operation on 4-inch PE pipe

**Notes:**
Scope of the project
Develop a remote external repair tool for damaged (ruptured, punctured, gouged) or defective PE pipe
Demonstrate the functionality and performance of the engineered repair tool in laboratory and field tests
Specific design goals to be addressed:
Lightweight construction
Top-down application – no need to get beneath the pipe
Manual operation from ground level
Operable in Keyhole or confined spaces – target excavation diameter of 18”
Effective operation on 4” PE pipe

## Scope of Work

- 	Phase 1:  18 months
-   Design, fabricate one or more test tools
-   Perform in-house & field tests
-   Laboratory tests on repaired PE Pipe sections
- 	Phase 2:  12 months
-   Construct one or more engineered prototypes
-   Perform in-house & field tests
-   Laboratory tests on repaired PE Pipe sections

**Notes:**
Phase 1
Design & fabricate a test repair tool
Perform in-house tests to determine functionality, safety and reliability of the test repair tool
Field tests to be performed at KeySpan Energy in Hicksville, NY
Laboratory tests on repaired pipe samples performed at OSU – quick burst and sustained pressure to determine overall performance of test tool – quality and adequacy of repair
Phase 2
Information gained in Phase 1 will guide construction of engineered prototype
In-house (Timberline) and field tests (KeySpan Energy)
Laboratory tests (OSU) on repaired pipe samples

## Tasks to Be Performed 

- Research Management Plan
- Technology Assessment
- Development of Test Tool
- 3.1	Safety Considerations for Repairing Pressurized Pipe
- 3.2	Test Tool Conceptual Design & Development
- 3.3.	Detailed Test Tool Designs
- 3.4	Test Tool Construction & In-House Testing

- Phase 1  Test Tool

**Notes:**
Task 1 – Research Management Plan – Scope of work, schedules, and timelines for project completion
Task 2 – Technology Assessment – Technology review to determine state-of –art of pipeline repair technology
Task 3 – Development of Test Tool
Safety Considerations
Test tool conceptual design
Detailed design
Test tool construction and in-house testing

## Tasks to Be Performed 

- R&D of Chemical Bonding Process for   Repair Patch
- 4.1	Chemical Bonding Process
- 4.2	Material & Thickness of Repair Patch
- 4.3.	Test Tool Performance Tests
- Laboratory Testing on Repaired PE Pipe Sections
- 5.1	Pressure Testing
- 5.2	Accelerated Age Testing

- Phase 1  Test Tool

**Notes:**
Task 4 – Research and Development of Chemical Bonding Process for the Repair Patch
Chemical bonding process
Thickness and material of patch
Optimal configuration of repair patch – size, material, thickness
Field environmental conditions will be considered
Size and type of damage to be expected
Performance testing of tool
Task 5 – Laboratory testing of repaired pipe samples
Pressure testing of repaired pipe samples
D1599 quick burst tests @ 23 and 80 degrees C
D1598 sustained pressure tests @ 23 and 80 degrees C
D2837 stress rupture regression @ 23 degrees C
Accelerated age testing
Long term safety and structural integrity of PE pipe samples
Thermal cycling of pressures between -25 and +80 degrees C
Pressure cycling of pipe at constant 23 degrees C
External pressure test – collapse
D2444 comparative impact testing

## Tasks to Be Performed 

- Field Evaluation of Test Tool
- Perform under simulated & actual field conditions
- Technical Feasibility Assessment of Tool
- Preparation for design & construction of engineered prototype

- Phase 1  Test Tool

**Notes:**

Task 6 – Field Testing
Performed under simulated and actual field conditions at KeySpan Energy – NY
Task 7 – Technical Feasibility Assessment of Test Tool
Tool will be continually assessed throughout Phase 1 in preparation for the design and construction of engineered prototypes
Close involvement and collaboration with DOE/NETL

## Tasks to Be Performed

- Design & Construct Prototype
-  8.1 Mechanical Design & Construction of   Engineered Prototype
-  8.2 R&D of Chemical Bonding Process for Repair Patch
- Laboratory Testing on Repaired PE Pipe Sections
-  9.1 Pressure Testing
-  9.2 Accelerated Age Testing

- Phase 2    Engineered Prototype

**Notes:**
Task 8 – Design and Construction of Engineered Prototype
Mechanical design and construction of engineered prototype
One or possible more prototypes will be constructed if warranted
R&D of chemical bonding process
Insure the best bond possible is being developed
Preliminary laboratory test on in-house repair pipe samples will be conducted
Task 9 – Laboratory Testing on Repaired Pipe Samples
Pressure testing of repaired pipe samples
D1599 quick burst tests @ 23 and 80 degrees C
D1598 sustained pressure tests @ 23 and 80 degrees C
D2837 stress rupture regression @ 23 degrees C
Accelerated age testing
Long term safety and structural integrity of PE pipe samples that have been
Thermal cycling of pressures between -25 and +80 degrees C
Pressure cycling of pipe at constant 23 degrees C
External pressure test – collapse
D2444 comparative impact testing

## Tasks to Be Performed

- 10.	 Field Evaluation of Engineered Prototype
-   -  Perform under simulated & actual field conditions
- 11.	 Performance and Design Assessment of the Engineered Prototype
-   -  In preparation for commercialization

- Phase 2    Engineered Prototype

**Notes:**

Task 10 – Field Evaluation of Engineered Prototype
Field evaluation by utility operating crews
Performed on damaged, buried, pressurized 4” pipe
Repaired pipe samples will be sent to laboratory for testing and evaluation
Task 11 – Performance and Design Assessment of Engineered Prototype
Project team will assess the design and performance of the prototype in preparation for commercialization

## Deliverables

- Research Management Plan
- Technology Status Assessment
- Periodic, Topical, and Final Reports
- Test Tools - Phase 1
- Engineered Prototypes - Phase 2

**Notes:**
DOE/NETL will receive
Research Management Plan
Technology Status Assessment
Periodic, Topical , and final Reports
The test tools developed in Phase 1
The prototypes developed in Phase 2

## Project Team

**Notes:**
Project Team
Timberline Tool for project administration and mechanical engineering
Oregon State University – Chemical Engineering Department – polymer chemistry and engineering, polymer testing
KeySpan Energy – field testing and assessment of test tool and engineered prototype

## Project Team

- Timberline Tool – Mr. Ken Green
- Integrated Manufacturing & Research Facility Columbia Falls, MT
- Oregon State University – Dr. Skip Rochefort
- Chemical Engineering - Polymer Laboratory  Corvallis, OR
- KeySpan Energy – Mr. Joe Vitelli, Jr.
- Principal Engineer
- Hicksville, NY

**Notes:**
Timberline Tool
Progressive company manufacturing tools designed to insure operator safety and preserve the integrity of the pipe.
Facilities and equipment located in Columbia Falls MT
Facilities support tool manufacturing business and include R&D, Engineering, Fabrication, Assembly, and Testing
Aluminum foundry and CNC machine shop - Supports the R&D efforts to manufacture parts for proposed repair tool
OSU
Dr. Skip Rochefort PhD UC San Diego– polymers for over 25 years – working with HP, Intel, Bechtel, and MIT.
Focus is on theological and molecular characterization of polymer solutions, gels, and melts.
State of the Art polymer lab for thermal characterization, surface characterization, rheological characterization, molecular characterization, and polymer processing tests.
KeySpan Energy
Mr. Vitelli will coordinate the field test protocol and evaluation at KeySpan’s locations in New York and New England
4” PE pipe will be exposed via keyhole excavation and repairs made

## Project Schedule

**Notes:**
Phase 1
Task 1:  2 months – completed
Task 2:  2 months – completed
Task 3:  18 months
Safety considerations and operating procedures – ongoing – 3 months
Test tool conceptual design – proceeding – 6 months
Detailed test tool design – scheduled for February 2004 for 4 months
Test tool construction & testing – ongoing for the next 17 months
Task 4
Chemical bonding process – ongoing – scheduled for completion February 2004
Material and thickness of patch – scheduled to commence January 2004 for 5 months
Test tool performance tests – scheduled for summer 2005 for 9 months
Task 5
Pressure testing of repaired samples – ongoing for next 16 months
Accelerated age testing – scheduled for summer 2005 for 9 month
Task 6
Field testing of test tool scheduled for late summer 2005 for 7 months
Task 7
Feasibility assessment is ongoing for the length of the project

## Project Schedule

**Notes:**
Phase 2
Task 8
Mechanical design and construction – 12 months starting April 2005
Chemical process – starting in April 2005 for 6 months
Task 9
Pressure testing of repaired pipe samples – April 2005 for 10 months
Accelerated age testing of repaired pipe samples – July 2005 for 7 months
Task 10
Field testing of engineered prototype late summer of 2005 for 7 months
Task 11
Assessment of prototype for the 12 period of Phase 2

## Acknowledgements

-  Department of Energy and the
-      National  Energy Technology Laboratory
-    for their financial, technical, and administrative assistance in funding and managing the project through which this technology is being developed.
- KeySpan Energy
-    for all their support in  performing field evaluations.