Hydrotest is one of the most important inspection activities to assess the integrity of pipelines prior to starting transportation of hazardous liquids. If the pipeline is buried, and welds cannot be inspected visually for leak, it is required that the hydrotest pressure is held for 24 h to ensure that the pipeline is leak free. Ideally the pressure should remain constant, but this is practically impossible due to changes in temperature. Pressure and temperature of the pipelines are recorded continuously and evaluated at the end of the test. The pressure drop should be in line with the temperature drop based on compressibility relationship. However, nonconformance is expected due to accuracy of the individual instruments used to measure the pressure and temperature. It is then ambiguous to the evaluator whether the nonconformance is attributed to small leak or to instrument accuracy. In this paper, general uncertainty analysis with parametric study is used in the planning and designing phase of pressure test. The objective is to develop an appropriate acceptance criterion for the pressure test of buried pipelines. Actual field hydrotests are used to illustrate and validate the outcome of the analysis. The results show that high uncertainty values reduce the validity of the actual hydrotest. This is because the test would most probably pass regardless of the actual pressure drop measured.

1.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
, 2006, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids, ASME B31.4-2006.
2.
International Standard Organization
, 2000, “
Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-Pipeline Transportation Systems
,” ISO 13623: 2000(E).
3.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
, 2007, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, ASME B31.8-2007.
4.
Saudi Aramco
, 2010. Pressure Testing of Plant Piping and Pipelines, SAES-L-150.
5.
British Standards
, 2000, Gas Supply System-Pipelines for Maximum Operating Pressure Over 16 Bar-Functional Requirements, BS EN1594-2000.
6.
Chinese National Standards
, 2003, Code for Design of Gas Transmission Pipeline Engineering, GB50521-2003.
7.
Bahadori
,
A.
, and
Vuthaluru
,
H. B.
, 2009, “
Prediction of Bulk Modulus and Volumetric Expansion Coefficient of Water for Leak Tightness Test of Pipelines
,”
Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping
0308-0161,
86
, pp.
550
554
.
8.
Yan
,
F.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Zhang
,
H.
, and
Duan
,
Q.
, 2008, “
Study on Duration of Hydrostatic Leak Test for Gas Pipeline
,”
ASME
Paper No. IPC2008-64034.
9.
American Petroleum Institute
, 1997, Pressure Testing of Liquid Petroleum Pipelines, API RP 1110.
10.
California State Lands Commission
, 2003, A Procedure for the Hydrostatic Pressure Testing of Marine Facility Piping, CSLC-MFD.
11.
Saudi Aramco
, 2008. Thermal Expansion Relief in Piping, SAES-L-140.
12.
Moffat
,
R. J.
, 1982, “
Contribution to the Theory of Single-Sample Uncertainty Analysis
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
0098-2202,
104
, pp.
250
260
.
13.
Coleman
,
H. W.
, and
Steele
,
W. G.
, 1989,
Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers
,
Wiley
,
New York
.
14.
American Petroleum Institute
, 2004, Specification for Line Pipe, API Specification 5L.
15.
Saudi Aramco
, 2009, General Requirements for Pressure Testing, SAES-A-004.
You do not currently have access to this content.