SYSTEM PRESSURE TEST FOR OFFSHORE PIPELINES –

ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES?

Olav Fyrileiv, Asle Venas, Olav Aamlid, Leif Collberg, DNV GL

This paper was presented at the 13th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 29-31, 2017. It was
selected for presentation by OMC 2017 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract submitted by
the author(s). The Paper as presented at OMC 2017 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT

An important part of the pre-commissioning activity is the system pressure test (hydro test) as it is
termed in the DNV GL standard for submarine pipeline systems DNV-OS-F101. The reasoning for
performing this final test is primarily to confirm that the entire pipeline system is without any gross
errors and defects. In addition, it is also used to confirm leak tightness and to some degree the
strength of the whole pipeline system. Filling the pipeline with water to pressure test it and later
dewater and drying the pipeline, may be quite cumbersome, associated with challenges, as well as
costly and time consuming. E.g. it may require establishing a huge and costly compressor station
and a long period of drying the pipeline after the test has been performed. In some cases, the
system pressure test may even introduce additional threats to the pipeline integrity, i.e. the benefits
with the test can be lower than the disadvantages. For this reason, the DNV-OS-F101 contains a
clause opening for replacing the system pressure test by alternative means to ensure the same
level of integrity.

The system pressure test was developed in the 1950’ies to avoid a lot of the failures experienced
when pipelines were set into operation. By pressure testing the system after all installation and
construction works were finalised, any gross defects were revealed and could be fixed before the
pipeline was filled with hydrocarbons and operations started. As such this test proved to be a very
useful test. However, due to developments in pipe materials, pipe manufacturing, welding, NDT,
installation methods and QA/QC it is questioned whether the test is still as relevant or could be
avoided. In addition, developments into ultra-deep water with a high external pressure reduce the
usefulness of the test and introduce new challenges on emptying the pipeline and for long distance
pipelines, drying it.

DNV GL has received an increased number of requests for assistance with respect to replacement
of the system pressure test. This presentation summarises the background for the system pressure
test, trends in defects discovered by the test and the status. It further considers the requirements in
DNV-OS-F101 in case one considers to replace the system pressure test by alternative means,
and gives a few examples of projects where this has been done where the benefits and
disadvantages are briefly discussed.

INTRODUCTION

DNV GL has received an increased number of requests for assistance with respect to replacement
of the system pressure test. This presentation summarises the background for and outline an
alternative to replace the system pressure test by alternative means.

In the context of DNV-OS-F101 the system pressure test is mainly considered as a test to reveal
any gross errors for example flanges that are not connected properly, any construction damages
during construction, pipe handling, trenching, rock dumping and so on. With a proper QA/QC
system following up all phases of the pipeline project one may ask whether such a test is

1
necessary. The test itself is rather expensive and time consuming with all logistics involving
treatment of large volumes of water both before and after the test and mobilisation of large
compressor capacity. In addition, the test will always be on the critical path for the project
schedule, thus avoiding this test may save months and result in earlier start-up and production.

The system pressure test is sometimes called a strength test as the pipeline will never see a higher
pressure during operation than during this test. It may also be said to be a leakage test as the
pressure is kept at a constant high level for a certain test period. Any significant leakage will then
cause the pressure to drop and the test fails.

The question is can the system pressure test be avoided and replaced by other measures to reveal
gross errors?

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND FAILURES REVEALED

The system pressure test or hydrotest was introduced in the 1950ies to avoid the leakages or
failures during start-up of onshore pipelines. As such it became a success as the gross errors,
significant leakages and other defects were revealed during the test and could be fixed before
start-up with the hydrocarbon product.

The system pressure test or hydro test, which it is called in many codes because the use of water
as testing medium, replaced earlier testing with air or gas. Using any type of gas has some main
disadvantages due to the compressibility of the gas. First of all this compressibility means that a
huge amount of energy is stored within the pipeline and if it fails this can be a significant safety risk
to those close by the pipeline. Another disadvantage is the fact that a leakage may not be that
easy to reveal, at least not onshore, as the pressure drop will be very slow compared to the same
leakage with water.

The intention with the system pressure test is to expose the pipeline system to a higher pressure
than it will ever see during operation. However, it is worth to notice that for some loading scenarios
this may not be the most critical. For example, lateral buckles or free spans may expose the
pipeline to more critical combined loading during operation due to the effect of pressure,
temperature expansion and environmental loading. In addition, you may have 3rd party loads from
trawl gear and/or corrosion that makes loading scenarios during the operational phase more critical
with respect to failure.

There are, however, several good reasons for keeping the system pressure test. So, when
considering to replace it by alternative means the most important question to answer is:

What type of defects/gross errors can be revealed by the system pressure test?

By answering this question first, one can then assess whether these types of defects/gross errors
are relevant for the pipeline in consideration. Then, one may ask how these defects/gross errors
can be avoided or at least how to reduce the likelihood of these to occur to an acceptable limit.
Alternatively introduce other means to detect such defects/gross errors.

Kirkwood et al. /1/ report nine cases of steel pipeline failures during the system pressure test
reported in PARLOC (1977-1993). Of these six were caused by weld defects, one by brittle fracture
of a riser, one due to out of spec material and one cracking at an anode lug weld.

2
PROS AND CONS OF SYSTEM PRESSURE TEST
A system pressure test has several advantages and disadvantages. Some of them are listed
below.

Advantages with system pressure test can be:

• Will reveal significant leakages
• Ensure hydrocarbon containment of the pipeline system when starting operations
• Easy way to clean and gauge the pipeline

Disadvantages of the system pressure test can be:

• High cost for some pipelines
• Time consuming and normally on critical path
• Drying can be challenging and can takes a long time
• Potential for hydrate formation in case of leakage through separation pigs
• Defects are detected late and can be costly to repair and cause significant schedule impact
• High pressure/weight may cause lateral buckling and/or additional seabed intervention
• Water treatment can be a challenge, both treatment of the water before filling the pipeline
and to get rid of the water after the test
• Corrosion challenges in case of insufficient drying
• The system pressure test will not reveal all unwanted defects and/or leakages below a
certain limit/rate.

REQUIREMENTS IN DNV-OS-F101
The DNV GL Standard for Submarine Pipeline Systems, DNV-OS-F101, is the only global pipeline
standard that open for waive the system pressure test. The intention was to allow such waiving for
deep-water pipelines under certain condition. This opening was given in the 2000 edition of the
standard. After this issue a handful pipelines has received acceptance from DNV GL to replace the
system pressure test by alternative means.

DNV GL is now in the process to update DNV-OS-F101. The new revision will be renumbered to
DNVGL-ST-F101. Based on the experience with several projects the last years where waiving of
system pressure test has been given and/or at studied extensive experience have been gained.
This experience will be reflected in the new revision.

In the new revision, the system pressure test will no longer be subject to waiving, but it will be
opened for replacement of the system pressure test by alternative means that will ensure the same
level of safety. The plan is also to open for replacing the system pressure test also for pipelines
that are not considered to be deep-water pipelines.

The main changes are not finally concluded yet but the current proposal is presented below:
For pipelines where the disadvantages with the system pressure test are extraordinary, alternative
means to ensure the same level of integrity as with the system pressure test are may be allowed
by agreement.
Alternative means to the system pressure test may be considered when all the following criteria
have been met:

3
 • The pipeline section does not contain non-welded connections unless these have been
separately tested after installation in the pipeline system.
• The mill pressure test requirement of Sec.7 E100 has been met and not waived in
accordance with Sec.7 E107.
• Extensive experience with similar pipelines documenting a good track record with respect to
defects and leakages during system pressure test. This implies that:
o Only CMn steel pipelines with a steel grade less than - or equal to X70 are to be
considered.
o Only pipelines consisting of seamless or SAW pipe joints are to be considered.
o Welding, including repair, by cellulosic electrodes is not allowed.
o The pipeline shall not be exposed to nominal tensile longitudinal strains above 0.4%
from mill testing to commissioning.

The alternative means shall be established by use of a systematic approach, e.g. risk assessment
like FMECA, etc. It shall be demonstrated that the identified failure modes, i.e. the gross errors
and defects which may be revealed by the system pressure test, will be mitigated or revealed by
the alternative means.

A systematic and comprehensive risk assessment shall be carried out addressing not only the risk
related to the elements of the above systematic approach, but also other aspects that are affected
by replacing the system pressure test. Typical other aspects include consequences of accidental
water ingress during construction, cleaning of pipe, interfaces and contractual issues. The
systematic approach and the risk assessment shall lead to a rigorous and comprehensive technical
assurance program that is implemented and followed up in all relevant phases.

It should be noted that the replacing the system pressure test shall not be a simple task. It will
require extensive work form all involved parties. It will affect the project through the entire pipeline
development from FEED stage to completion.

ALETERNATIVE TO SYSTEM PRESSURE TEST

The alternative means/way to replace the system pressure test must be based on a systematic
approach and will require comprehensive work by all involved stakeholders, and will depend on
many factors. The systematic approach must be based on a comprehensive risk assessment, e.g.
FMECA. The study shall result in a rigorous and comprehensive technical assurance program
affecting all phases of the entire development.

A few examples of are outlined below:

Steel and pipe manufacturing

Tight specifications and procedures, rigorous qualified manufacturing process, tight QA/QC during
all phases, measurement of physical properties, NDT, mill test, etc.

Transportation/handling
Stacking, lifting slings, increased QA/QC, inspections handling and arriving at site/installation
vessel, Marine warranty, etc.

Storage
Stacking, corrosion protection, instrumentation, QA/QC, etc

Installation
Thorough welding and NDT qualification. Qualification, calibration, testing and follow-up on laying
vessel, equipment and parameters, control or weather and sea states, tension, touch-down
monitoring, QA/QC, etc.

4
Tie-in
Well proven methods and tools, control of forces applied, local testing, QA/QC

Seabed intervention/Construction work

Restrictions and qualification of methods, fully instrumentation and monitoring of the operation in a
way that can detect all relevant irregularities, no detected irregularities during operation of
ploughing/trenching equipment, QA/QC, etc.

Additional means to detect defects/gross errors

Pneumatic testing using air and a lower pressure, pressure test shore approach and onshore parts
separately (safety issues). Looking for bubbles by ROV or using acoustic sensors to detect
leakages both large ones and small.
Canadian codes/legislation allows use of pneumatic tests up to 80% of SMYS. Several pipelines
has been successfully tested this way. Such tests must however be carried out only after all safety
issues has been considered and handled.

DISCUSSIONS
A system pressure test is for most common pipelines considered to be a good way to test if the
pipeline has been properly designed and constructed and are ready to start operation. Although
DNV-OS-F101 opens for replacement of the system pressure test by alternative means it is
assumed that most pipelines also in the future will be subject to a system pressure test before it is
put in operation. This is assumed to be the common norm particularly in areas where the general
quality assurance and control is not a very high standard, where the track record for the operator
and/or the contractors are not top class, etc.

However, for some pipelines, e.g. deepwater gas pipelines, where the benefit is limited (e.g. the
main load is external pressure). In some cases, we have seen that the system pressure test has
harmed the pipeline, and even damaged pipelines in a way that require repair.

For some pipelines where the involved parties have a very good track record, where the cost and
time for a system pressure test is high, where a very high level of QA/QC and technical integrity
system is put in place to control all aspects that could result in a failure that can be discovered by a
system pressure test replacing the system pressure by alternative means could be a good
alternative.

It should also be noted that a system pressure test does not increase the quality of a pipeline, but
rather test if the QA/QC system implemented during the project has been sufficient. In case of
deepwater pipelines where a system pressure test is very costly and time consuming, it could be
argued that it is better to spend the money on a rigorous and comprehensive technical assurance
system in order to reduce the probability for a failure or to avoid a failure rather than spending it on
a test at the end. This make also sense as deepwater pipelines can be very challenging, time
consuming and costly to repair.

However, if the system pressure test is not carried out it will be very important to implement
alternative means to cleaning and gauging of the pipeline.
The system pressure test has also often been used as a contract interface proving that the
installation or EPCI contractor has delivered a pipeline system without any significant defects and a
system that fulfils the hydrocarbon pressure containment requirements. It will be necessary to find
alternatives to all such issues.

5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Hydro test or system pressure test of pipelines has been done for many decades and is considered
a good method to test the integrity of a pipeline before it is put into operation. However, for some
pipelines the cost and time to carry out the system pressure test can be very high and the benefit
fairly limited. In such cases it could be argued that it is better to spend the money on a rigorous
and comprehensive technical assurance program to reduce the probability of a failure rather than
spending it on a system pressure test.

The DNV GL standard for submarine pipeline systems DNV-OS-F101 opened for
waiving/replacement of the system pressure test under some conditions and by implementing a
rigorous and comprehensive technical assurance program.

REFERENCES
/1/ Kirkwood, M.G., Cosham, A. and Hopkins, P. , “Can the Pre-service Hydrotest be
Eliminated?”