|
PIPA - Polyolefins Technical Information |
|
|
Notes on Field Pressure Testing By Bob LeHunt, John Black and Mike Stahmer
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It has long been recognised that for field pressure testing of PE pipelines it may be necessary to provide allowance for the fact that polyethylene pipes expand under pressure and are subject to creep. Recommendations such as found in Oy Wiik & Hoglund published literature, were developed in Scandinavia over twenty years ago to account for the pressure variations, especially with pipes up to one metre diameter. In Australia, large diameter pressure pipelines were being field pressure tested as long ago as the 1960’s. AS 2033, Installation of Polyethylene Pipe Systems, first published in 1977, acknowledged the phenomenon, but did not provide specific guidance for making allowance. The main emphasis was on visual inspection of joints for leakage, still the most effective method if practicable. In the period since, various national and industry specifications have been developed, including WRc (U.K.), ASTM (U.SA.), PPI (U.S.A.) VAV P78 (Sweden), CEN. In addition, the advent of PE materials with higher stress ratings and lower modulus values has necessitated more detailed consideration of the procedures. Where pipe expansion is a consideration, the method should either account for effects such as soil support or be independent of them. Two methods that are independent of soil support are the modified rebound method, based on work within CEN, and the Swedish Water Works Association VAV P78 method, originally developed by Prof. Lars-Eric Janson. This latter method has been successfully used over a range of pipe sizes since 1989, and described in various publications. The modified rebound method has the advantage that it is a quick test, but it cannot quantify a leak in the event of failure. This method is suitable for all pipe diameters. Where it may be necessary to quantify a leak, or for referee purposes (eg to resolve an inconclusive test result), the method of Prof. Lars-Eric Janson should be used. Regarding other methods, ASTM rely heavily upon visual inspection, PPI recommendations are similar to rebound and Swedish Water Works Association (but material specific), and the WRc (pressure decay) method is complex and requires an estimate of the support given by the soil. For pipelines where visual inspection of joints is not practicable, for long pipelines, or for larger diameters, the following are the recommended procedures for field pressure testing. The Reference Test (Prof. Lars-Eric Janson) method has been adopted by Standards Australia in AS/NZS 2566.2:2002 Buried flexible pipelines Part 2: Installation, and by the Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA) in their Polyethylene Pipeline Code WSA 01 - 2004.
REBOUND TEST SUMMARY
MAXIMUM SYSTEM TEST PRESSURE (STP) at least 1.25 times maximum working pressure of pipeline but not to exceed 1.25 times MAOP of lowest rated pipe/fitting in line. PRELIMINARY PHASE
MAIN TEST PHASE
D Vmax allowable = 1.2V D P {1/EW + D/eER} where:- 1.2 = air allowance V = pipe volume in litres D P = pressure drop in kPa D = pipe internal diameter in metres e = pipe wall thickness in metres ER = pipe material modulus kPa (see Table 1) EW = Bulk modulus of water (see Table 2)
PASS IF
FAIL
Table 1 PE MATERIAL MODULUS ER
Note: Table assumes MDPE for PE 80B and HDPE for PE 100.
Table 2 BULK MODULUS EW - WATER
REFERENCE TEST SUMMARY
MAXIMUM SYSTEM TEST PRESSURE (STP) at least 1.25 times maximum working pressure of pipeline but not to exceed 1.25 times MAOP of lowest rated pipe/fitting in line. PRELIMINARY PHASE
MAIN TEST PHASE
PASS IF
where:- Vleak 1h = 0.14 L D H D = Pipe internal diameter in metres L = Test pipe length in km H = Average test head in metres
FAIL
For Further information please contact : | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||