20102010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1Requires access

Effectiveness of Hydrostatic Testing for High Strength Pipe Material

Kimberly K. Cameron, Alfred M. Pettinger

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Pipeline systems are typically subjected to hydrostatic testing to help ensure pipeline integrity. It can be desirable to use the highest feasible test pressure to eliminate as many defects as possible. It is widely accepted that safe control of yielding can be achieved during hydrostatic testing and that the hydrostatic testing does not create a stress state that is less safe from the standpoint of pre-existing flaws. For a small percentage of cases, however, hydrostatic testing can produce flaws that were longer than the ones removed. In these few cases, the flaws can then fail at a lower test pressure than the original hydrostatic test. The low probability of these events, however, means that the effectiveness of the hydrostatic test is not significantly diminished in this case. Because crack growth from a pre-existing flaw is retarded in a plastically deformed material, it is also typically assumed that hydrostatic testing should not lead to accelerated crack growth. However, this does not take into account that the hydrostatic testing itself can cause some increment in crack growth and that for many higher strength pipe materials significantly large defects can survive hydrostatic testing. These longer defects can potentially grow after surviving a hydrostatic test. This paper discusses this difference in crack growth rates for cracks that have survived hydrostatic testing in different grade pipeline steels and the implications for hydrostatic testing.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Pipeline systems are typically subjected to hydrostatic testing to help ensure pipeline integrity. It can be desirable to use the highest feasible test pressure to eliminate as many defects as possible. It is widely accepted that safe control of yielding can be achieved during hydrostatic testing and that the hydrostatic testing does not create a stress state that is less safe from the standpoint of pre-existing flaws. For a small percentage of cases, however, hydrostatic testing can produce flaws that were longer than the ones removed. In these few cases, the flaws can then fail at a lower test pressure than the original hydrostatic test. The low probability of these events, however, means that the effectiveness of the hydrostatic test is not significantly diminished in this case. Because crack growth from a pre-existing flaw is retarded in a plastically deformed material, it is also typically assumed that hydrostatic testing should not lead to accelerated crack growth. However, this does not take into account that the hydrostatic testing itself can cause some increment in crack growth and that for many higher strength pipe materials significantly large defects can survive hydrostatic testing. These longer defects can potentially grow after surviving a hydrostatic test. This paper discusses this difference in crack growth rates for cracks that have survived hydrostatic testing in different grade pipeline steels and the implications for hydrostatic testing.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Pipeline systems are typically subjected to hydrostatic testing to help ensure pipeline integrity. It can be desirable to use the highest feasible test pressure to eliminate as many defects as possible. It is widely accepted that safe control of yielding can be achieved during hydrostatic testing and that the hydrostatic testing does not create a stress state that is less safe from the standpoint of pre-existing flaws. For a small percentage of cases, however, hydrostatic testing can produce flaws that were longer than the ones removed. In these few cases, the flaws can then fail at a lower test pressure than the original hydrostatic test. The low probability of these events, however, means that the effectiveness of the hydrostatic test is not significantly diminished in this case. Because crack growth from a pre-existing flaw is retarded in a plastically deformed material, it is also typically assumed that hydrostatic testing should not lead to accelerated crack growth. However, this does not take into account that the hydrostatic testing itself can cause some increment in crack growth and that for many higher strength pipe materials significantly large defects can survive hydrostatic testing. These longer defects can potentially grow after surviving a hydrostatic test. This paper discusses this difference in crack growth rates for cracks that have survived hydrostatic testing in different grade pipeline steels and the implications for hydrostatic testing.

Key concepts: Hydrostatic test, Hydrostatic equilibrium, Hydrostatic pressure, Hydrostatic stress, Pipeline (software), Materials science, Structural engineering, Stress (linguistics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Effectiveness of Hydrostatic Testing for High Strength Pipe Material — Research Paper | ScholarLens