Interpretation and evaluation of monitoring results for main pipelines hydraulic

pressure testing under non-isothermal conditions

Ju. A. Kraus, R. N. Ivanov, V. A. Grinevich, and A. N. Pakhotin

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1876, 020083 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4998903

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998903
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1876/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Reliability evaluation of oil pipelines operating in aggressive environment
AIP Conference Proceedings 1876, 020084 (2017); 10.1063/1.4998904

Personnel reliability impact on petrochemical facilities monitoring system’s failure skipping probability
AIP Conference Proceedings 1876, 020082 (2017); 10.1063/1.4998902

Research of rotating machinery vibration parameters - Shaft speed relationship

AIP Conference Proceedings 1876, 020086 (2017); 10.1063/1.4998906

Orthogonal system of fractural and integrated diagnostic features in vibration analysis

AIP Conference Proceedings 1876, 020087 (2017); 10.1063/1.4998907

Polymer composites including natural additives degradation rate indication

AIP Conference Proceedings 1876, 020091 (2017); 10.1063/1.4998911

Multi-method automated diagnostics of rotating machines

AIP Conference Proceedings 1876, 020081 (2017); 10.1063/1.4998901
 Interpretation and Evaluation of Monitoring Results for
Main Pipelines Hydraulic Pressure Testing under Non-
Isothermal Conditions
Ju. A. Kraus1, а), R. N. Ivanov1, b), V. A. Grinevich1, c), and A. N. Pakhotin1, d)
1
Omsk State Technical University, 11 Mira Pr., Omsk 644050, Russian Federation
a)
Corresponding author: omgtu.feom@yandex.ru
b)
irnsoft@mail.ru
c)
grinevich_v@mail.ru
d)
pachotinan@mail.ru

Abstract. The paper examines hydraulic pressure testing of main oil pipelines. The research objective is to identify and
describe the characteristic features of pressure changes in pressure testing of the main pipeline, caused by temperature
changes. The notions on the interpretation and evaluation of the results for pipeline pressure testing under non-isothermal
conditions are given, the number of pressure sampling points and temperature information being limited; and considering
the elevation difference along the length of the test section (where applicable). A formula for calculating the fresh water
volumetric expansion coefficient correlation with temperature and pressure is proposed. A method for interpreting the
hydraulic pressure testing results is developed, considering the parameters spread effect on the coefficients of the
volumetric expansion and the modulus of elasticity for the test fluid, as well as the coefficients of linear expansion and
Young's modulus for pipe steel. The application of the method allows to monitor the hydraulic pressure testing for main
oil pipelines.

Key words: hydraulic pressure testing; non-isometric conditions; data interpretation; indeterminancy calculation for data
of pressure change; correlation of volumetric expansion coefficient with temperature and pressure.

INTRODUCTION
In constructing new main pipelines and in repairing the existing ones with pipe replacement, hydraulic pressure
testing for strength and leak-proofness is carried out after the completion of construction and installation work [1, 2],
there being no fundamental difference in gas or oil pipelines testing [3]. Moreover, hydraulic pressure testing is
conducted after a longtime pipeline shutdown, and, occasionally, for operating pipelines in sections containing
defects that depend on the run life [4, 5]. Hydraulic pressure testing for strength and leak-proofness is an integral
part of operations aimed at maintaining a high reliability degree of hydrocarbon pipeline transport systems [6, 7].

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
In accordance with the US National Standard [1], when tested for strength, the pipeline is loaded with an internal
test pressure which must exceed the operating pressure by at least 25% at each pipeline point, test time being at least
4 hours. Similar recommendations are given by the American Petroleum Institute (API) [8]. In accordance with the
Russian Industrial Construction Standards [2], the strength test shall be carried out with the pressure exceeding the
operating pressure by not less than 10%, but not more than the mill test pressure, within 24 hours. In particular
cases, the requirements are toughened by raising the lower limit of the test pressure up to 125% of the operating one,

Oil and Gas Engineering (OGE-2017)

AIP Conf. Proc. 1876, 020083-1–020083-7; doi: 10.1063/1.4998903
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1556-0/$30.00

020083-1
and in special cases (for sections of the highest category) to 150%. The paper [6] refers to 150% of the estimated
pressure and notes the necessity to consider the temperature correction, since the material has a higher strength at
lower temperatures. At the same time, as a rule, the pressure at the lowest point of the test section shall not exceed
the pressure when circular stresses occur in the metal, equaling to 95% [2] from the yield limit.
Testing is conducted over a sufficiently long period of time, that may result in temperature change of the test
fluid and the pipeline wall, the change occurring not only in ground and aboveground pipelines, but also in
underground ones [3].
As the temperature changes, the pressure changes, so the validity of pipe testing is questioned. In [1, 8], the
subject is examined considering the necessity of interpreting the results of hydraulic pressure testing with the
pressure changes caused by the temperature change.
Thus, a critical component of the hydraulic pressure testing is the results interpretation. It is necessary to find out
what caused the test pressure change at the monitor point: by temperature change during testing or by leakage
through the defect. In this case, since the underground pipeline must be filled before the hydraulic pressure testing
[1, 2], there is a problem in identifying leaks by using visual methods.
In [9-11], a correlation of the pressure change with the temperature change for a horizontal fastened pipeline is
given, since constant pressure is applied in the models, which does not correspond to testing sections of the main
riser pipeline.
The task is to estimate the test pressure in the sections not equipped with pressure monitor points, based on the
pressure measurement at the monitor point.
The research objective is to develop a computational method for identifying pressure in sections of the main
pipeline that are not equipped with pressure taps, considering the volumetric expansion and water compressibility,
and to develop a method for interpreting the data obtained in the hydraulic pressure testing, considering a list of
factors effecting the process and assumptions related with water and pipe steel properties.

SOLUTION PROCEDURE
Hydraulic pressure testing of a pipeline without gas inclusion is studied under non-isothermal conditions.
Evaluation of the hydraulic pressure testing results for the riser pipeline is made by the water mass balance
determined by the pressure at the monitor point at the beginning and end of the hydraulic pressure testing. Structural
and element modeling is applied to determine the mass using the pressure known.
The calculation of the indeterminancy for the pressure changes result at the beginning and at the end of the
hydraulic pressure testing is used in the research, considering the effect of the reference data spread on the
coefficients of the volumetric (temperature) expansion and the elasticity modulus for the test fluid (water), and also
the linear expansion coefficients and Young's elastic modulus for pipe steel.

THEORY
The approach to correlation of pressure and temperature change can be considered similar in national and foreign
literature. According to [9 and 10, 11], the correlation for a horizontal fastened pipeline can be written in the
following form, if there is no gas inclusion in the pipeline:
E  2˜D ˜1 P 
'P t t ˜'T
1 D

K E ˜G  
˜ 1 P 2
, (1)
where βt is the volumetric (temperature) water expansion, 1/°С;
αt is the coefficient of steel linear expansion, 1/°С;
μ is the Poisson ratio;
K –is the water modulus for elasticity, Pa;
D is the pipeline internal diameter (Author's note: according to [10], the outer diameter), m;
E –is the Young's modulus for steel elasticity, Pa;
δ is the pipeline wall thickness, m;
ΔT=(Tj+1–Tj) is the temperature change (Tj+1 and Tj are temperatures in (j+1 and j time points,
correspondingly), °С.

020083-2
 It should be noted that the approach of identifying βt, αt, K, E coefficients differs in accordance with the
standard. For instance, in Russian regulations, the Young's modulus for steel elasticity equals to E=2,1·10–11 Pa [9],
and the coefficient for steel linear expansion is αt=1,2·10–5 1/°С [9], while in [7, 12] – E=2,07·10–11 Pa and
αt=1,17·10–5 1/°С, correspondingly. In [6], when converting to SI system, E=2,068·10–11 Pa.
In order to model the behavior of water, the coefficient correlations for the volumetric expansion and modulus of
elasticity with temperature and pressure, presented in [12], can be used, being the correlation data of the Iranian
standard [11] in the 2002 version. The proposed correlations provide an average absolute deviation of approximately
0.58% for the volumetric expansion coefficients and 0.08% for the modulus of water elasticity. At the same time,
institutional regulations [9] neglect the pressure effect on the coefficient (Fig. 1), the correlation of the modulus for
water elasticity with temperature and pressure being given in the table.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Formula (1) is obtained for a horizontal pipeline. The elevation differences affect pressure distribution in the
hydraulic pressure testing for a cross-country riser pipeline; thus, formula (1) is not adequate.
The following procedure has been developed for correction. In the hydraulic pressure testing of the riser pipeline
when simultaneously tested, it is necessary to divide the pipeline into sections of a finite length Δxi=(xi+1–xi), having
a constant internal diameter Di, a wall thickness δi, an axis inclination angle to the horizon αi, the sections being
made of the same material. The initial or final coordinate of at least one section must coincide with the pressure
measurement point, then at any neighboring point, due to water compressibility, the pressure can be determined as
follows

P
j ,i 1
 K ˜ln 1 A
P
j ,i i ,   (2)
where Pj,i and Pj,i+1 are pressure in j time point in j and (i+1) section point, correspondingly;
Ai is the substitution coefficient for j section, equaling
g ˜sin D ˜ U ˜'x § P ·
A i ст i ˜exp ¨ E ˜§ T T ·  j ,i ¸
i ¨ ¸
K ¨ t © ст j ¹ K ¸
© ¹,
where g is the gravitational acceleration, m/s2;
ρст is the water density under standard conditions, kg/m3.
Tст is the standard temperature, °С.
With the knowledge of the pressure at each point of a section, its average pressure at time point j can be
determined

   
§§ P · ·
P K ˜¨ ¨1 i ¸  1 A1 ˜ln 1 A ¸
j ,ср ¨¨ K ¸ i i ¸
©© ¹ ¹. (3)
With the knowledge of the average pressure for each section at the time point corresponding to the beginning of
the test report time (the pressure has reached the test one, the process parameters have stabilized), and the time point
corresponding to the end of the test, their capacity is determined [9]
S ˜ D2 ˜'x § P ˜D ·
V
j ,i
i
4
i ˜¨ 2˜D ˜1 P   j ,i i ˜ 1 P 2 ¸
¨ t E ˜G ¸  
© i ¹, (4)
and the density of the water included at the current temperature and pressure
§ P ·
j ,i ¸
U U ˜exp ¨ E ˜§¨ T T ·¸ 
j ,i ст ¨ t © ст j ¹ K ¸
© ¹, (5)
and the water mass, correspondingly
m U ˜V
j ,i j ,i j ,i . (6)

020083-3
 In hydraulic pressure testing, when pumping, leakage or water disposal being absent, the mass must remain
constant. If the calculated value of the water mass, defined by the pressure at the monitor point, is less than the water
mass, defined by the conditions at the beginning of the testing, it is necessary to find out whether there has been a
leakage.
One of the points that make the results interpretation for hydraulic pressure testing under non-isothermal
conditions difficult is the discrepancy between the real values of βt, αt, K, E coefficients and the ones accepted in the
calculations. Figures 1 and 2 show the comparison of the coefficients for the volumetric expansion and the elasticity
modulus for fresh water, calculated in accordance with [9] and [12], and for sea water, calculated in accordance with
[12].
As the figures demonstrate, the values of the modulus for water elasticity in [9] and [12] differ insignificantly
(Fig. 2), while the coefficient of volumetric expansion at high pressure differs significantly. Thus, at high pressure
and temperature from 0°C to 15°C, there is a notable discrepancy in density (Fig. 3). The expression for calculating
the coefficient of volumetric expansion, proposed in [9], can be improved as follows

E
t
6,9˜105 1,7˜105 ˜T  2,110  
˜ 7 ˜T 2 1,6˜10 9 ˜T 3  2,5˜10 12  7,78˜10 14 ˜T ˜ P 105
(7)
,
where P is the pressure, Pa.
Formula (7) is less lengthy than in [12], and it provides more calculation accuracy than the formula in [9].
The results of density determination using the coefficient of volumetric expansion which is calculated by
formula (7) are shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 shows the comparison of the calculation results according to formula (7) with
the calculation results according to the correlation [12].
Moreover, Fig. 1–2 demonstrate that salts in the fluid significantly affect the coefficient of volumetric expansion
and the modulus for fluid elasticity, and consequently the density of water. At the same time, salts in water can
cause internal corrosion of the tested pipeline, therefore, it is necessary to provide operations to reduce salt
composition or add corrosion inhibitors into water, which, in turn, can also cause real density deviation from the
calculated one.
Thus, the problem of interpreting the results for hydraulic pressure testing is much more difficult than the
evaluation of the temperature drop in pressure according to formulae (1) and (2–6).
One of the approaches in interpreting the results of hydraulic pressure testing is to calculate the indeterminancy
of the result for pressure changes at the beginning and the end of the hydraulic pressure testing, considering the
effect of βt, αt, K, and E coefficients in formula (1).

0,0003
Coefficient of volumetric expansion, 1/°С

Fresh water at P=10 MPa

according to A. Bahadori
0,00025

Sea water at P=0.1 MPa

0,0002
according to A. Bahadori

0,00015
Sea water at P=10 MPa
according to A. Bahadori
0,0001

0,00005 Fresh water according to

Institutional Regulations
39-1.9-004-99
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature, °С
FIGURE 1. Coefficient correlation of water volumetric expansion with temperature and pressure

020083-4
 2,50E+09 Fresh water at P=0.1 MPa according
to A. Bahadori
Modulus for water elasticity, Pa

2,40E+09
Fresh water at P=10 MPa according
to A. Bahadori
2,30E+09
Sea water at P=0.1 MPa according
to A. Bahadori
2,20E+09
Sea water at P=0.1 MPa according
2,10E+09 to A. Bahadori

Fresh water at P=0.1 MPa according

2,00E+09
according to Institutional
Regulations 39-1.9-004-99
1,90E+09 Fresh water at P=10 MPa according
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 according to Institutional
Regulations 39-1.9-004-99
Temperature, °С
FIGURE 2. Correlation of modulus for water elasticity with temperature and pressure

1005,00
At P=10 MPa according to Institutional
1004,00 Regulations 39-1.9-004-98
1003,00
At P=0.1 MPa according to IPS-C-PI-310
1002,00
Density, kg/m3

1001,00 At P=0.1 MPa according to Institutional

1000,00 Regulations 39-1.9-004-98
999,00 At P=0.1 MPa using formula (7)
998,00
997,00 At P=10 MPa according to IPS-C-PI-310
996,00
At P=10 MPa using formula (7)
995,00
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00
Temperature, °С
FIGURE 3. Fresh water density

020083-5
 0,0003 At T=7 °С according to A. Bahadori

0,00025
At T=7 °С according to formula (7)
Coefficient for water volumetric

0,0002
compression, 1/°С

At T=17 °С according to A. Bahadori

0,00015
At T=17 °С according to formula (7)
0,0001

0,00005 At T=27 °С according to A. Bahadori

0 At T=27 °С according to formula (7)

0 2 4 6 8 10
Temperature, °С
FIGURE 4. Comparison of the coefficient correlation for the volumetric compression of fresh water with pressure
The calculation of the result indeterminancy for pressure changes is made as follows:
U 2˜ c E ˜ u>E @  cD ˜ u>D @  c K ˜ u>K @  c E ˜ u>E @
2

,
2

(8)
2 2

where cE is the coefficient considering the indeterminancy effect on the coefficient of volumetric (temperature)
water expansion;
w'P 'T
cE
wE t 1

D
K E ˜G
˜ 1 P 2  
. (9)
cα is the coefficient considering the indeterminancy effect of the coefficient for steel linear expansion:
w'P  2 ˜ 'T ˜ (1  P )
cD
wD t 1

K E ˜G
D

˜ 1 P 2 
(10)
cK is the coefficient considering the indeterminancy effect of water elasticity modulus:
w'P E t  2 ˜ D t ˜ (1  P ) 1
cK ˜ 'T ˜
wK 2
K2
˜ 1  P 2 ¸
§1 D ·
¨ 
© K E ˜G ¹ (11)
cE is the coefficient considering the indeterminancy effect of the Young's modulus for steel elasticity:
w'P E t  2 ˜ D t ˜ (1  P )
˜ 1  P 2 
D
cE ˜ 'T ˜
wE 2
E ˜G
2

˜ 1  P 2 ¸
§1 D ·
¨ 
© K E ˜G ¹ (12)
u[E] is the indeterminancy coefficient for volumetric (temperature) water expansion, 1/°С;
u[D] is the indeterminancy coefficient for steel linear expansion, 1/°С;
u[K is the indeterminancy of the water elasticity modulus, Pa;
u[E] is the indeterminancy of the Young's modulus for steel elasticity, Pa.
Since [9] and [11], the indeterminancy of the modulus of water elasticity is 1.7125˜10-5 1/°С with a confidence
level of 95%.
In accordance with the analysis of [1-10]:
x the indeterminancy of the water expansion coefficient is 1.7125˜10-5 1/°С with a confidence level of 95%;

020083-6
 x the indeterminancy of the coefficient for steel linear expansion is 0.018˜10-5 1/°С with a confidence level of
95%;
x the indeterminancy of Young's modulus of steel elasticity is 0.015˜10-11 Pa with a confidence level of 95%.
The range of pressure changes, considering the effect of the indeterminancy of βt, αt, K, and E coefficients in
formula (1) is calculated according to the correlation:

'PДИД 'P r U
(13)
The most significant contribution to the indeterminancy of the pressure changes in hydraulic pressure testing is
the correlation of the modulus for water elasticity with water density (Fig. 2). The density analysis for the average
sample of water used in the testing allows to reduce the indeterminancy modulus for water elasticity by an order of
magnitude.

CONCLUSION
The presented method of interpreting the results of hydraulic pressure testing provides the conclusion on test
conditions fulfillment, considering the deviations of real properties of water and steel from the properties in the
calculation.
When carrying out hydraulic pressure testing, considering the coefficients effect of volume (temperature) water
expansion, steel linear expansion, the modulus for water elasticity, and the Young's modulus for steel elasticity, the
results of the pressure change can be interpreted as follows: if the pressure changes based on the hydraulic pressure
testing, the results are within the confidence limit, defined by the indeterminancy due to the properties of the
pumped fluid and the properties of the materials the pipeline being made of, then the hydraulic pressure testing
results shall be considered satisfactory.

REFERENCES
1. US Standart ASME B31.4-2012
2. RUS Standart VN 39-1.9-004-98
3. Barry G. Bubar, Pipeline Planning and Construction Field Manual: Chapter 18, 379-404 (2011).
4. J. F. Kiefner., W. A. Maxey, API’s 51st Annual pipeline conference & cybernetics symposium, New Orleans,
Louisiana., 2000.
5. J. F. Kiefner Failure stress levels of flaws in pressurized cylinders. (American society of testing and materials
report No. ASTM STP, 1973), 461–481.
6. M. Stewart Surface Production Operations. 3: Facility Piping and Pipeline System, 2016,. 885–896
7. A. Bahadori Oil and Gas Pipelines and Piping Systems, 93-117 (2017).
8. US Standard API RP 1110.
9. Institutional Regulations 39-1.9-004-98 [Instructions for pipelines hydraulic testing with increased pressure
(stress test method)] Russian.
10. J.C. Gray How temperature affects pipeline hydrostatic testing. Pipeline and Gas Journal, 203, 26–30. (1976).
11. Iranian Standard IPS-C-PI-370(2).
12. A. Bahadori., and H. B Vuthaluru,. Int. J. Press. Vess. 86, 550–554 (2009).

020083-7