Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Models for predicting the test medium temperature during hydrotesting

pipe segments based on measured ambient and pipe wall temperatures
K.K. Botros a, *, J. Crowe a, V. Liu b, J. Lu b
a
NOVA Chemicals Corporation, Centre for Applied Research, 2928 16th Street NE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
b
TC Energy, 450 1st St SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Strength and leak tests of newly constructed or modified pipeline sections or piping assemblies are required by
Gas pipeline code. This is often conducted by pressurizing incompressible medium, such as water, water-methanol or water-
Hydrotesting propylene glycol (PG) mixtures while the system is sealed. Major challenges are invariably encountered with leak
Leak test
tests, which rely on correlating changes in the test pressure to the test fluid temperature (DP/DT) to discern if a
Fluid bulk modulus
Thermal expansion
leak exists. Often, the temperature variations are never correlated to pressure variations for several reasons: 1)
Strained access to the test fluid temperature is not available for several reasons outlined in the paper, therefore, the
Un-restrained pipe measured external pipe wall temperature is taken instead and is assumed to be equal to the test fluid inside the
pipe, 2) the pipe wall temperature variations are generally significant due to variation in the ambient temper­
ature or wind speed (in the case of exposed pipe), 3) the pipe section may not be restrained from axial movement,
4) tables and calculations of DP/DT are readily available for pure water and often erroneously assumed to be
applicable to other test media such as mixtures of water-methanol or water-PG, which are vastly different than
pure water, and 5) some pipe sections may be partially exposed to ambient and partially buried. The present
work addresses these factors via development of high-fidelity models based on governing equations that accounts
for the respective effects in a more fundamental manner. It was found that it is paramount to use the correct test
medium isothermal bulk modulus and its coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion at the test conditions as
these two parameters have the most significant influence on DP/DT. Due to these properties, water-PG was
shown to result in the highest DP/DT, which poses the greatest challenges during hydrotesting in the field.
Additionally, it was found that the difference between the pipe external wall temperature and the test fluid
average temperature for the case of exposed pipe increases as Biot number increases. The developed thermal
transient models were compared to three field hydrotests of different pipe sizes, namely DN900, DN150 and
DN50, all above ground subject to cross wind and variations in ambient air temperatures.

2885; https://www.saiglobal.com, 2006), and NOM 007 ASEA 2016 (in

1. Introduction
Following the completion of construction, a pipeline segment or
piping assembly is required to be hydrotested to a specified test pressure
depending on the design pressure, applicable codes and Class location.
Several organizations and governmental bodies have developed stan­
dards and guidelines relating to pipeline construction and hydrotesting.
The most prominent regulations and standards are: ASME B31.3 (pro­
cess piping) (ASME B31.3, 2018), B31.4 (liquid pipelines) (ASME B31.4,
2019), B31.8 (gas pipelines) (ASME B31.8, 2018), CFR 49 192/195
(DOE - 49 CFR Ch; DOE- 49 CFR Ch), CSA Z662 (in Canada) (CSA
Z662:19), AS2885.5/AS3788 (in Australia) (https://shop.standards.go,
Mexico) (An International, 2016).
Often during hydrotesting, the test medium is subjected to temper­
ature variations due to many environmental factors and site conditions.
In this case, it is recommended that consideration be given to estab­
lishing the pressure-temperature relationship so that the effects of such
variations can be taken into account in determining the pressure
gradient expected during the test period. During the temperature sta­
bilization period, however, i.e., between the time of filling and the
commencing of the pressure test, it is not required that a pressure-
temperature gradient be established because pressure-temperature
extrapolation is not necessarily reliable. Whereas, during the hydrotest
test it is utmost important to correlate changes in the test pressure to the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kamal.botros@novachem.com (K.K. Botros).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103989
Received 25 January 2021; Received in revised form 24 April 2021; Accepted 27 April 2021
Available online 1 May 2021
1875-5100/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
K.K. Botros et al.
Nomenclature
A Pipe external surface area (m2)
Bi Biot number (− )
BT Fluid isothermal bulk modulus (Pa)
D Pipe external diameter (m)
DP Change in pressure (Pa)
DT Change in temperature (oC)
E Young’s modulus of the pipe material (Pa)
H Depth of burial from tope of the pipe to ground surface (m)
k Thermal conductivity (W/m.oC)
m Fluid mass inside the pipe segment (kg)
P Fluid pressure (Pa)
r Radial coordinate (m)
R Internal pipe radius (m)
Ro Outer pipe radius (m)
t Pipe wall thickness (in Eq. 3 through 9) (m)
t Time (Eq. (10) onward) (s)
T Temperature (oC)
Uo External heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.oC)
test medium temperature to discern if a leak exists. In practice, the
temperature variations are never correlated to pressure variations for
several reasons: 1) the temperature is measured on the outer wall of the
pipe which is assumed to be the same as the test fluid inside the pipe, 2)
the pipe wall temperature variations are generally significant due to
variation in the ambient temperature or wind speed (in the case of
exposed pipe), 3) the pipe section may be not restrained from axial
movement, 4) the properties of the test fluid if it is a mixture of water-
methanol or water-glycol at different mix ratios are vastly different
from pure water, and 5) some pipe sections may be partially exposed to
ambient and other portion is buried. Invariably, these factors leave the
project team unable to decide on the spot as to whether to accept or
reject the hydrotest results.
The present work is aimed at addressing the above five challenges
facing a field engineer on the ground attempting to determine if there is
a leak or not, and to accept or reject hydrotest results. In particular, the
first challenge is related to the measurements of the test fluid temper­
ature. For pipeline sections, often there are no thermowell connections
available as per design, especially for buried pipelines. While thermo­
wells could be added on the “test-head”, they do not represent the
temperature of the test fluid inside the full stretch of the pipeline. For
small size facility piping, there may not be thermowells available either,
or while it is possible to install one on the so-called “test-tree”, it would
be at the very end of the pipe with the “jumper-line” separating it from
the piping under hydrotesting. For large bore facility piping, there might
be thermowells available, however they typically have very short
insertion lengths, which in reality, they measure more or less the test
fluid temperature near the pipe wall and not the bulk.
The paper provides a methodology to address the influence of the
principal properties of the test medium combined with the relevant
geometrical parameters of the pipe segment and environment conditions
during the test, via development of high-fidelity thermal transient
models based on governing equations that accounts for the respective
effects in a more fundamental manner. This is described in detail in
Section 3. Section 4 describes two-dimensional thermal transient (un­
steady) models developed to determine the relationship between tem­
poral variations in ambient temperature and the measured pipe outer
wall temperature and the resulting temporal variations in the test fluid
mean temperature: one for buried pipes and another for exposed pipes.
Effects of variations in ambient temperatures are presented in Section 5
in a normalized manner for different pipe geometries, test fluid prop­
erties, and environmental conditions. The developed models were
2
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989
V Fluid volume (m3)
WI Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) from the sun (W/m2)
W.T. Wall thickness (m)
z Axial coordinate along the pipe (m)
α Pipe material linear thermal expansion coefficient (1/oC)
αi Thermal diffusivity of substance (i) (m2/s)
φ Azimuthal coordinate (radians)
θ Angle between solar radiation and pipe surface (radians)
ρ Fluid density (kg/m3)
τ Normalized time (− )
ν Poisson ratio of pipe material (− )
ψ Surface absorptivity of the external pipe wall (− )
Subscript
a ambient air
i initial condition at time zero
m test medium
p pipe
s soil
w water
validated against hydrostatic field data on a DN900, DN150 and DN50
above ground pipe assemblies at compressor stations at different sites.
2. Literature review
In order to apply the fundamental pressure-temperature relationship
during hydrotesting, the thermodynamic properties of the test medium
(isothermal bulk modulus and coefficient of volumetric thermal
expansion) needed to be quantified as function of pressure and tem­
perature. The thermodynamic properties of water are well known
(Bahadori and Vuthaluru, 2009), however the thermodynamic proper­
ties of water/methanol, water/ethylene-glycol, water/propylene-glycol
mixtures are less understood. The properties of the water-methanol
mixture at different temperatures and pressures have been studied by
several authors (Soetens and Bopp, 2015; Kume et al., 2005; Huc et al.,
2015; Kubota and Tsuda, 1979; Hartono and Kim, 2004). Soetens and
Bopp (2015) simulated the mixing properties of water-methanol mix­
tures over the entire range of mole fractions and found good agreement
with experimental results. Kume et al. (2005) developed an equation of
state for methanol at temperatures of − 98 ◦ C–300 ◦ C, and pressures up
to 200 MPa. Huc et al. (2015) used Monte Carlo simulations to develop
an isotropic model for water/methanol mixtures and found that it
correctly described the density dependence of water-methanol on tem­
perature and composition. Kubota and Tsuda (1979) studied the specific
volume and viscosity of methanol/water mixtures in relation to tem­
perature, pressure, and composition. When using water/methanol
mixtures, challenges arise due to the coefficient of thermal expansion of
methanol being 7–9 times higher than that of water, and therefore much
higher changes in pressure occur with changes in temperature, i.e.,
DP/DT (Hartono and Kim, 2004). This makes it difficult to detect leaks
with water/methanol mixtures since the pressure change due to loss of
fluid from a leak cannot be easily resolved.
Propylene Glycol (PG) can also be used instead of methanol due to its
lower environmental impact. The literature contains properties of
water-PG mixture only for (50%wt) (Sagdeev et al., 2017; Zhuravlev,
1992; Guignon et al., 2010). From this data, the present work developed
an empirical correlation for the density of water-PG (50%wt) mixture as
follows:
( ) ( )
ρwater− PG(50%wt) = − 0.0019T 2 +0.5262T +1050.4 + − 0.0002P2 +0.3374P
(1)
K.K. Botros et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989

where: T in K, and P in MPa.

Fig. 1 shows an example of density vs. temperature at P = 12 MPa of
pure water, water-methanol (50%wt) and water-PG (50%wt) mixtures.
The latter was based on the developed correlation (1) above, while the
formers are based on REFPROP (Kunz and Wagner, 2012; Lemmon et al.,
2010). Note that the density of water-PG (50%wt) is highest over the full
range of temperature. However, it is not the absolute value of density
that determines relationship DP/DT, but rather the thermodynamic
derivatives. The resulting derivative thermodynamic properties
(dρ/dT)P and isothermal bulk modulus for three test fluids are also
compared in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
The California State Lands Commission procedure for hydrotesting
recommends that aboveground pipe tests be conducted on overcast and
cool days when possible to minimize thermal heating of the test media.
This reduces the amount of bleeding required so as not to overpressure,
which may be significant for larger sections of above ground piping on
Fig. 2. Comparison of (dρ/dT)P of pure water, water-methanol (50%wt) and
sunny/hot days (Procedure for the Hydro, 2003). Types of ambient
water-PG (50%wt) at different temperatures and 12 MPa.
conditions that should be avoided are hot, extremely windy and rainy
conditions. Multiple temperature recorders should be used when a sig­
nificant difference of the pipe fluid temperature is expected, such as test
sections having both above ground and below ground pipes, above
ground sections which vary in pipe diameters, and above ground seg­
ments exposed to sun and shade. Khatami noted that since temperature
may differ from one side of the pipe to the other, the surface temperature
of the pipe should be measured at 0, 90 and 180 degrees of the cross
section, and the average value of these should be used as the pipe
temperature at the time of testing (Khatami et al., 2020). The California
State Lands Commission states that for aboveground sections, the tem­
perature probe should be attached underneath the pipe and thermally
insulated from the ambient. It is recommended that insulation extend
one pipe diameter on each side of the probe (Kirkwood and Cosham,
2000). There is, however, some debate when it comes to insulating a
segment of the pipe, the concern being, an insulated location may not be
representative of the whole pipe segment. Insulation will alter the heat
transfer between the outer surface of the pipe and ambient conditions,
and this local point may not provide an accurate representation of the Fig. 3. Comparison of isothermal bulk modulus of pure water, water-methanol
whole pipe segment. Further investigation on this should be conducted (50%wt) and water-PG (50%wt) at different temperatures and 12 MPa.
in future work.
Entrapped air will also affect the pressure-temperature calculations, test section as it displaces a significant volume of compressible air
since the expansion coefficient of air is not the same as water or other (Matta, 2017).
incompressible test medium, and proper measures should be taken to Matta examined the collective effects of leakage, temperature
avoid air entrapment (Matta, 2017). A small amount of entrapped air changes and entrapped air during hydrostatic testing (Matta, 2017). He
can significantly affect the compressibility of the test fluid, and as a developed equations to quantify the effects of temperature changes and
result if a leak is present, the pressure loss may be less than expected leakage rates on changes in pressure, as well as the effect of trapped air
(Kunz and Wagner, 2012). The first indication of large amounts of in the pipe on the test pressure. The results of the work indicate that
entrapped air usually occurs during initial pressurization, where the small leaks are most easily detectable in short test sections with stable
pressure increase would not be immediate as water is injected into the temperatures and little air entrapment. The magnitude of the pressure
changes, resulting from the temperature variation and leaks throughout
the test, is highly dependent on the starting temperature and pressure.
He found that the influence of temperature variations on the test pres­
sure are minimized at colder temperatures, water at 4 ◦ C, and increase
with increasing test temperature (Matta, 2017).
Concluding from the above cited literature, it is clear that an issue
exists with regard to what constitutes the actual and correct test medium
temperature and the commonly made assumption that it is equal to the
external wall temperature of the pipe as discussed earlier. Hence, the
external wall temperature is measured and taken as a ‘proxy’ of the test
medium temperature. As such, procedures are developed by individual
companies, e.g. (Procedure for the Hydro, 2003) to provide best prac­
tices to install and shield these external temperature sensors from sur­
rounding environment, location on the pipe wall in the azimuthal
direction and along the stretch of the pipe segment, as well as the limited
number of sensors from which an average value is taken. In some cases,
only one temperature sensor is available, and its location is not the
Fig. 1. Comparison of density of pure water, water-methanol (50%wt) and optimum either. Despite all these precautions and specifications, still
water-PG (50%wt) at different temperatures and 12 MPa. remains the challenge that the pipe external wall temperature is

3
K.K. Botros et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989

invariably NOT equal to the test medium temperature. This is the [ ( )]

D( ) 1
principal motivation of the present work, in an attempt to develop 0=ρ V 1 − ν2 + δP
means to discern the test medium temperature from external wall tem­ tE BT
[ ( ) ]
perature measurements, properties of the test fluid and geometry and + ρ V 2(1 + ν)α +
1 ∂ρ
δT (for Restrained Pipe) (6)
properties of the pipe segment under hydrotest. ρ ∂T P
Similarly:
3. Governing equations [ ( ) ( )]
D 5 1
0=ρ V − ν + δP
A pipeline segment of piping assembly containing a fixed mass of tE 4 BT
[ ( ) ]
hydrotest medium can be treated as a closed but variable volume system, 1 ∂ρ
+ ρ V 3α + δT (for Un − Restrained Pipe) (7)
while small amount of this medium can bleed out (leak) through a ρ ∂T P
pinhole. Heat can be transferred across the boundaries, allowing the
temperature of the medium to change (increase or decrease). Because Finally:
[ ( ) ]
the temperature can change, the pressure and density of the medium can
also change. The pipe walls are flexible and subject to thermal expan­ ( ) ( ) − 2(1 + ν)α + 1ρ ∂∂ρT
δP DP
sion, so the volume of the system will change as a result. Additionally, an = = [ ( )]P (for Restrained Pipe) (8)
δT DT D
increase in internal pressure causes a section of pipe to stretch, which tE
(1 − ν ) + B1T
2

increases its volume.

Generally, an increase in temperature will cause the pipe to expand
radially and axially and increase in volume. How much the pipe expands
depends on the restraint of the pipe. For a short section of pipe above
ground, for example, the ends of the pipe may be capped, and the in­
ternal pressure will act upon the close ends. In this case, the pipe is
acting as a cylindrical pressure vessel, where the expansion occurs in
two directions – radially and axially. This condition is referred to as
“unrestrained”. For a long section of buried pipeline, however, the
friction of the soil prevents the pipe from expanding axially. This is the
“restrained” case, and the pipe is assumed to expand only in the radial
direction. Any resistance to radial expansion of the pipe by the soil is
neglected. This is also true for above ground pipe segments when the
two ends are rigidly anchored and restrained from axial movements.
The fundamental governing equations of the effect of pressure and
temperature on the volume of the pipe for the restrained and unre­
strained cases without leak can be expressed as follows:
m=ρ V (2)
δm = ρ δV + V δρ (2a)
[
( ) ]
( ) ( )3α + ρ1 ∂∂ρT
−
δP DP
= =[ ( ) ( P)] (for Un − Restrained Pipe) (9)
δT DT D 5
tE 4
− ν + B1T
Unlike pneumatic testing, the sensitivity of changes in δP with
respect to changes in δT (which will be denoted DP/DT from here on),
due to pipe restrain/un-restrained conditions, thermal expansion and
pipe compliance is significant and cannot be neglected. Furthermore,
two other primary properties of the test fluid come to play an important
role in the relationship between DP and DT according to Eqs. (8) and (9),
namely, the isobaric coefficient of thermal expansion (∂ρ/∂T)P and the
isothermal bulk modulus of the test fluid, BT . Both parameters are de­
rivatives of the functional density with respect to temperature and
pressure, respectively, as was shown in the previous Section 2.
A numerical example based on Eqs. (8) and (9), is provided to
demonstrate the role and effects of the aforementioned parameters on
the relationship DP/DT. Consider a DN400 pipe segment of wall thick­
ness = 7.925 mm (hence internal diameter, I.D. = 390.55 mm), E = 207
GPa, ν = 0.28 and the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of the pipe
material, α = 1.17 × 10− 5 m/ C. Based on the principal properties the
◦

where, in the case of no leak or no test fluid addition or bleeding off,

three test fluids, water, water-methanol (50%wt) and water-PG (50%
δm = 0.
wt), DP/DT can be calculated for this pipe segment, and the results are
First term in (2a):
shown in Fig. 4.
[ ]
D( ) It is shown that water-PG (50%wt) exhibits the highest stiffness
ρ δV = ρ V 1 − ν2 δP + 2(1 + ν)α δT (for Restrained Pipe) (3)
tE compared to water-methanol (50%wt) and pure water. For instance, at
T = 10 ◦ C and P = 12 MPa, DP/DT is equal to approx. 120 kPa/ C for
◦

[ ( ) ]
pure water, 780 kPa/ C for water-methanol (50%wt), and 850 kPa/ C
◦ ◦
D 5
ρ δV = ρ V − ν δP + 3α δT (for Un − Restrained Pipe) (4)
tE 4 for water-PG (50%wt). This indicates that water-PG (50%wt) is the
The difference in the formulation of Eq. (3) vs. Eq. (4) is due to the
boundary condition effects on the relationship between strain vs. stress
in the three-principal directions (axial, radial and azimuthal), the deri­
vation of which can be found in any solid mechanics textbook.
Second term in (2a):
[( ) ( ) ]
∂ρ ∂ρ
V δρ = V δP + δT
∂P T ∂T P
[( ) ( ) ] (5)
ρ ∂ρ
=V δP + δT
BT ∂T P

Substituting in (2a) and rearranging:

[ ] [( ) ( ) ]
D( ) ρ ∂ρ
0=ρ V 1 − ν2 δP + 2(1 + ν)α δT + V δP + δT
tE BT ∂T P
or;

Fig. 4. Comparison of DP/DT of a DN400 pipe segment based on different test

fluids at 12 MPa.

4
K.K. Botros et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989

stiffest fluid followed by water-methanol (50%wt), while pure water is [ ( ) ( )]

∂Tp 1 ∂ ∂Tp 1 ∂2 Tp
the least stiff. Pipe wall: = αp r. + 2 (11)
∂t r ∂r ∂r r ∂φ2
The term “stiffness” here is used rather loosely to indicate the relative
value of the change in DP with respect to a change in DT, i.e., DP/DT. [ ( ) ( )]
∂Ts 1 ∂ ∂Ts 1 ∂2 Ts
This illustrates the challenges in a hydrotest if water-PG or water- Soil: = αs r. + 2 (12)
∂t r ∂r ∂r r ∂φ2
methanol mixtures are used instead of pure water as fluctuation of DP
will be relatively high to the extent that it could hinder the ability to
where, α represents thermal diffusivity, r, radial coordinate, T, tem­
discern a pinhole leak. Unfortunately, hydrotesting in sub-freezing
perature and t, time. Subscripts (m, p, s, a) denote test medium, pipe
ambient temperature prohibits the use of pure water and mixing with
material, ground soil, and ambient air, respectively. Solutions of the
methanol or PG is necessary. Depending on how low the ambient tem­
above transient thermal governing equations in the form of spatial-
perature gets, it is important to select the right concentration of either
temporal temperature distribution can be expressed as function of
methanol or PG to prevent freezing, but not to over-mix unnecessary to
dimensionless parameters as follows:
avoid the issue of undesirable high DP/DT. Another observation in Fig. 4
( )
is that the difference in DP/DT between restrained vs. unrestrained is T − Ta αs αp r t αm
T= =f ; ; ; τ= 2 (13)
small, and would progressively become smaller for smaller pipe sizes, Tmi − Ta αm αm R Ro
and the opposite occurs as the pipe size gets larger.
where, τ, is the dimensionless time and subject to boundary conditions.
4. Pipe wall vs. test medium temperatures Equation (13) describes the thermal field in 0 > r > R close to the pipe,
which indicates that the relationship between test medium temperature
The formulation of the governing equations and analysis presented in and the pipe external wall temperature is driven primarily by soil-to-
the previous Section assumes that the measured outer wall temperature medium thermal diffusivity ratio (αs/αm), since the ratio (αp/αm) is
of the pipe section under hydrotesting is equal to the test medium essentially constant. Furthermore, the solution is considered self-similar
temperature. It is well known from numerous field measurements that with respect to r/R, and that the time scale is proportional to square of
this is not the case, albeit that the test medium temperatures are rarely the pipe radius, R. Note that, the effect of the burial depth, H, is
measured (ASME B31.3, 2018; ASME B31.4, 2019; ASME B31.8, 2018; inconsequential as it is almost always the same for most pipe sizes
DOE - 49 CFR Ch; DOE- 49 CFR Ch; CSA Z662:19; Procedure for the (approx. 1.0 m). Fig. 5 shows details of the simulation space (left), and
Hydro, 2003; Khatami et al., 2020). To validate this assumption, a model grid structure (center). The boundary condition at the bottom and
transient thermal analysis was performed using ANSYS software right of the domain shown as Ts is constant and is equal to Ta at the
(ANSYS, 2020) to discern the relationship between the pipe external ground surface.
wall temperature and the test medium average temperature. This Sec­ The FEA-based simulations were performed in ANSYS Mechanical
tion describes the basis of two models: one for buried pipes and the other 2020 R1 using the transient thermal solver. The solid domain was
for above ground pipes. Results of these models are presented in Section meshed using PLANE77 elements, a higher order 8-node thermal
5. element used for 2-D steady-state or transient analysis. The transient
model was solved using a distributed sparse matrix direct solver. A mesh
4.1. Buried pipe independence study was conducted for a DN400 pipe to determine if the
resulting water and pipe temperatures reached a mesh independent
Fig. 5 depicts ANSYS model for the buried pipe along with salient solution. When the mesh size was decreased from 2 mm to 1 mm (8.5k
model parameters for the transient model. Ignoring the derivative in the elements to 33k elements) the resulting average water temperature
axial direction (z coordinate), the thermal transient governing equations changed by only 0.02 ◦ C. Therefore, a mesh size of the order of 1 mm
can be expressed in two-dimensional domain along the radial direction, was adopted for DN400 pipes, and scaled up/down for other pipe sizes.
r, and the azimuthal direction, φ, as follows: Example results of the model predictions are shown in Fig. 6 for the
[ ( ) ( )] following pipe geometry, soil characteristics, initial conditions, and the
∂Tm 1 ∂ ∂Tm 1 ∂2 Tm thermal diffusivity ratio (αs/αw = 2.8) at different time stamps of 1, 3, 6
Test medium: = αm r. + 2 (10)
∂t r ∂r ∂r r ∂φ2

Fig. 5. Schematic of ANSYS model for buried pipe to determine the relationship between the external pipe wall temperature and the test medium average tem­
perature inside the pipe.

5
K.K. Botros et al.
Fig. 6. Example results of the temperature field inside and outside a buried pipe at different time for diffusivity ratio (αs/αw = 2.8).
and 9 h from the start of the hydrotest. The following parameters are
used in this example, assuming that the test medium is pure water:
• Initial conditions: Tmi = 20 ◦ C, Tpi = 20 ◦ C, Tsi = 10 ◦ C.
• Constant parameters: Ta = 10 ◦ C, αw = 0.143 × 10− 6 m2/s, αp = 12 ×
10− 6 m2/s, αs = 0.4 × 10− 6 m2/s, R = 0.3937 m (DN800), W.T. =
0.0127 m, H = 1.0 m
• Time steps: Adaptive time steps; min. = 0.001s (during initial stage
when temperature changes are fast), max. = 500s (after first 1–2 h
when temperature changes are slow).
Here, the ambient temperature is assumed to remain constant at
10 ◦ C during the entire duration of the hydrotest, while the test medium
(water) and pipe wall temperatures were assumed to be at 20 ◦ C at time
= 0. This assumption is revisited and discussed in Section 5. Fig. 7 shows
the result of the simulation in terms of normalized external pipe wall
temperature and cross-sectional area averaged test fluid temperature
inside the pipe vs. normalized time, τ, for different (αs/αw) ratios.
4.2. Above ground pipe
The thermal transient governing equations for exposed (above
ground) pipe segments are similar to the buried pipe in so far as the test
medium (Eq. (10)) and pipe wall (Eq. (11)) again ignoring the derivative
in the axial direction (z coordinate), but the soil equation (Eq. (12)), is
replaced with the heat transfer between the pipe outer wall and ambient
Fig. 7. Normalized external pipe wall temperature and area integrated test
fluid temperature inside the pipe vs. normalized time, τ, for different (αs/αw)
ratios for buried pipe segments.
6
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989
air in the presence of cross wind as follows:
∫ ( ) ∫
∂T ( )
kp . .dA = AUo Tp − Ta − ψ .WI .cos(θ).dA (14)
∂r r=Ro
A A
where, Ro is the outer pipe radius, Uo is the external heat transfer co­
efficient which is determined from an applicable Nusselt number cor­
relation with cross flow Reynold number (based on cross wind speed,
outer pipe diameter, and ambient air density and viscosity) and Prandtl
number of ambient air (Kirkwood and Cosham, 2000). The second term
on the R.H.S. of Eq. (14) is related to heat absorption due to solar ra­
diation, where ψ is the surface absorptivity of the external pipe wall, WI
is the Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) from the sun during the time of the
test at the hydrotest site location, and the integral is over the part of the
external surface area facing the sun (Holman, 2009). If solar radiation is
not considered, then Eqs. (10) and (11) will not have the azimuthal
terms on the respective R.H.S. Again, the axial direction is not consid­
ered here assuming no temperature gradient in the z-direction.
Likewise, solution of the pertinent Eqs. (10), (11) and (14) in the
form of spatial-temporal temperature distribution can be expressed as
function of dimensionless parameters as follows:
( )
T − Ta Uo Ro αp r t αm
T= =f ; ; ; τ= 2 (15)
Tmi − Ta km αm R Ro
Note that the first term on functional R.H.S. is Biot number defined in
the present work as:
Uo R
Bi = (16)
km
where, km is the thermal conductivity of the test medium. Likewise, the
relationship between test fluid temperature and pipe external wall
temperature is driven solely by Bi number, since again the ratio (αp/αm)
is essentially constant. Similarly, the solution is considered self-similar
with respect to r/R, and that the time scale is proportional to square
of pipe radius, R. Fig. 8 shows details of the simulation space and grid
resolution adopted in ANSYS thermal transient simulations performed in
the present work.
Example results for the conditions and pipe geometry of Fig. 8 are
shown in Fig. 9 for Bi number = 2 at different time stamps of 1, 3, 6 and
9 h from the start of the hydrotest. Note that ambient temperature is
assumed to remain constant at 10 ◦ C in this example as well, an
assumption which will be addressed in the next Section. Fig. 10 shows
the result of the simulation in terms of normalized external pipe wall
temperature and area integrated test fluid temperature inside the pipe
K.K. Botros et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989

and surrounding temperatures, all reached the same temperature before

pressurizing and commencing of the hydro tests. Ambient temperature
was then assumed to be ramping up at the rate Ṫa . The intent was to
determine how the pipe wall temperature and test fluid temperature
track this ambient temperature. The results from ANSYS simulations are
normalized as follows:
( )/( )
Ṫ a − Ṫ w Ṫ a − Ṫ p (17)

where the time derivatives of the various temperatures are defines as

follows:

Ṫ a = (dTa /dt)
Ṫ w = ((dTw//dt)) (18)
Ṫ p = dTp dt

5.1. Buried pipe

Fig. 11 shows ANSYS model parameters of the same DN800 buried

Fig. 8. Schematic of ANSYS model for above ground pipe to determine the
relationship between the external pipe wall temperature and the test medium
average temperature inside the pipe.
vs. normalized time, τ, for different Bi number.
pipe segment used in previous examples, and results in terms of pipe
wall temperature and average water temperature over a period of 10 h
from the start of the hydrotest. In this example, after sufficiently long
stabilization time, the test water temperature, pipe wall temperature
and ambient temperature all assumed to have reached equilibrium at
10 ◦ C. At the start of the hydrotest, the ambient temperature is assumed
to be increasing at a rate of 1 C/h. The results show that the test water
◦

temperature has hardly increased, and the pipe wall temperature

5. Effects of variations in ambient temeperture
increased only by 0.04 ◦ C, which is rather negligible. Notice the tem­
perature contours in the ground soil after 10 h in Fig. 11 (bottom left),
The analysis conducted thus far assumed constant temperature of
that it hardly penetrated to the depth at the top the pipe.
ambient air, and that the hydrotest test procedure commences imme­
Similar simulation was conducted on DN50 pipe segment. Fig. 12
diately after filling where there could be a vast difference between
ambient air temperature and the test medium temperature (e.g., 10 ◦ C
and 20 ◦ C, in the two examples shown in Figs. 6 and 9). Clearly, if there
is a variation in ambient temperature during the test, it will affect the
relationship between the pipe wall temperature and the average me­
dium temperature over the duration of the test.
In practice, the actual hydrotest procedure does not commence
immediately after filling, either purposely or due to time taken to check
for entrained air, sequence of multiple bleed-off and injection of test
medium to replace the bled fluid/air mixture, etc. Following this step,
the field crew usually leave the system bottled-in for extended period
(typically one day, or even longer) purposely to stabilize the system and
allow for further entrained air to migrate to a high elevation point for
subsequent bleed-off/re-injection procedure afterward. Often, the test
medium temperature, pipe wall temperature, soil and ambient air
temperature come very close to equalizing before commencement the
Fig. 10. Normalized external pipe wall temperature and area integrated test
hydrotest.
fluid temperature inside the pipe vs. normalized time, τ, for different Bi number
Simulation cases were conducted in ANSYS following a full stabili­
for above ground pipe segments.
zation period such that the test fluid temperature, pipe wall temperature

Fig. 9. Example results of the thermal field inside an above ground pipe at different time for Bi = 2.

7
K.K. Botros et al.
Fig. 11. ANSYS model parameters and results of buried DN800 pipe segment subject to hydrotesting while ambient temperature is changing at a rate of 1 C/h after
full stabilization temperature of 10 ◦ C.
shows ANSYS model parameters and results of pipe wall temperature
and average water temperature over a period of 10 h from the start of the
hydrotest. The results show that the test water temperature increased
only by 0.024 ◦ C, and likewise, the pipe wall temperature increased by
only 0.033 ◦ C, both of which are rather negligible.
5.2. Above ground pipe
The same investigations were carried out for above ground pipe
segments. In this case, we considered one pipe size of DN400 at varying
Bi numbers. As will be seen later, the results are independent of the pipe
size as long as the time is normalized by the dimensionless parameter, τ.
Fig. 13 shows results in terms of pipe wall temperature and average
water temperature over a dimensionless time up to τ = 0.14 (corre­
sponding to 10 h for the pipe size of DN400 in this example) from the
start of the hydrotest. Again, time 0 starts after long stabilization time,
the test water temperature, pipe wall temperature and ambient tem­
perature all assumed to have reached equilibrium at 10 ◦ C. At the start of
the hydrotest, again the ambient temperature is assumed to be
increasing at a rate of 1 C/h. Other parameters used in the simulations
◦
are: αw = 0.143 × 10-6 m2/s, kw = 0.6 W/m.C, αp = 12 × 10-6 m2/s, pipe
W.T. = 9.52 mm, and R = 0.19368 m.
The results show different trends than that of buried pipes. The
8
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989
◦
reason is that the pipe is now exposed to the ambient with a thermal
resistance corresponding to external heat transfer coefficient (Uo), via
the dimensionless Bi number, as opposed to the case of buried pipes
where the soil (massive mass) hinders the penetration of ambient tem­
perature variations to reach the pipe wall and affect the water temper­
ature inside the pipe. In the present case, the pipe wall temperature
increase depends on the Bi number as shown in Fig. 13. It is clear that as
Bi number increases, the gap (or difference) between the pipe wall
temperature and the area average water temperature widens, which lead
to higher dimensionless temperature rates defined by Eq. (17).
It should be noted that based on the dimensionless parameters of Eq.
(15), the normalized rate of change in temperatures defined is Eq. (17) is
solely dependent on Bi number up to a given dimensionless time, τ,
irrespective of the pipe size. Therefore, based on the results of Fig. 13,
values of (Ṫa − Ṫw )/(Ṫ a − Ṫ p ) are plotted against Bi number in Fig. 14,
which can be fitted in the form of Eq. (19). It is important to note that
this equation is applicable only up to τ = 0.14. Further work is underway
to extend this relationship to higher Bi numbers, as well to include τ as
another dependent dimensionless parameter in the relationship to
determine (Ṫa − Ṫw )/(Ṫ a − Ṫp ).
( )/( )
Ṫ a − Ṫ w Ṫ a − Ṫ p = 1.0 + 0.1874 Bi (19)
K.K. Botros et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989

Fig. 12. ANSYS model parameters and results of buried DN50 pipe segment subject to hydrotesting while ambient temperature is changing at a rate of 1 C/h after
◦

full stabilization temperature of 10 ◦ C.

temperatures stated above. Note that the rate of increase of water

6. Comparison and validation against field data
temperature is lagging that of the pipe wall temperature. This translates
to 0.7744 ◦ C over a period of 4 h. Following the DP/DT formulation in
In this Section, three hydrotest data sets of one large diameter pipe
Section 3, and based on average test pressure of 16835.5 kPa, and
segment and two small diameter pipe assemblies were collected over the
average temperature of 17 ◦ C, the predicted DP from Eq. (8) for
past year on TC Energy’s NGTL pipeline system in Alberta, Canada. All
restrained pipe is calculated to be = 216.5 kPa, and from Eq. (9) for un-
these pipe segments were installed above ground at different compressor
restrained pipe to be = 207 kPa, both of which are close to the measured
station sites, and hence the ambient air condition in terms of tempera­
DP of 209 kPa. No leak was observed anywhere along the pipe segment
ture variations and wind speeds were principal parameters involved in
during both strength and leak tests.
the analysis.
The second field hydrotest was conducted on above ground DN150
The first field hydrotest was conducted on an above ground DN900
Sch. 40 pipe assembly, 15 m long and includes five 90-degree elbows.
pipe of W.T. = 22.5 mm. The data of a 4-h strength test followed by 4-h
Here, the strength/leak tests were carried out simultaneously over
leak test are plotted in Fig. 15 in terms test pressure, external pipe wall
approx. 2 h. Fig. 16 shows plots of the test data in terms test pressure,
temperature (measured at 6 o’clock position) and ambient temperature.
and ambient and pipe wall temperatures. Since the pipe diameter is
During the first 4-h of the strength test, the ambient temperature is not
small, it follows from Eq. (19) and Fig. 14 that the test fluid temperature
constant but increases approximately linear at a rate of 1.9273 C/h.
◦

would track closely to the pipe wall temperature, i.e. Ṫ w = Ṫ p , since Bi

Over the 4-h period of the strength test, the static pressure increased by
number for this pipe size is expected to be ≪ 1. In this test, the measured
209 kPa. The pipe external wall temperature also increases at an average
DP/DT is shown to be 442 kPa/0.62 ◦ C = 716 kPa/ C. Following the DP/
◦

rate of 0.8099 C/h. The site meteorological data reported at this time
◦

DT formulation in Section 3, the calculated DP/DT from Eq. (9) at

indication average wind speed of 2.5 km/h (0.7 m/s), therefore, the
average P = 1089 kPa, and T = 21.17 ◦ C for un-restrained pipe (due the
external heat transfer coefficient, Uo was calculated to be = 3.47 W/m2.
presence of the five elbows) was found to be = 334 kPa/ C. Here, the
◦

K, and hence Bi = 2.64. The resulting rate of increase of the water

measured DP/DT is almost 2 times that predicted which is on the
temperature was calculated from Eq. (19) to be 0.19356 C/h, based on
◦

opposite direction of potential leak. This was found to be due to the

Bi = 2.64, and the measured rate of change of ambient and pipe wall
possibility that water temperature is not uniform along the length of the

9
K.K. Botros et al.
Fig. 13. ANSYS model results of above ground DN400 pipe segment subject to hydrotesting while ambient temperature is changing at a rate of 1 C/h after full
stabilization temperature of 10 ◦ C, Bi = 0.74, 2.9, 5.8, 8.4, 20 and 40.
Fig. 14. Normalized rate of change of temperatures vs. Bi number for above
ground pipe segments subject to hydrotesting while ambient temperature
is changing.
pipe segment, since the location where the pipe wall temperature was
measured was at the very end of the pipe close to the hydrotest head
with massive valves and manifold fittings. Hence the measured wall
temperature was not truly representative of the entire 15 m long pipe
assembly. An important finding that needs future work.
The third field hydrotest was conducted on above ground DN50 Sch.
XS pipe segment, 102 m long and includes seven 90-drgree elbows. Here,
a 4-h strength test followed by 4-h leak test, as shown in Fig. 17. Again,
since the pipe diameter is small, it follows that Ṫw = Ṫp , since Bi number
for this pipe size is expected to be ≪ 1, according to Eq. (19), where
limBi→0 (Ṫ a − Ṫ w )/(Ṫa − Ṫp ) = 1.0. During the strength test, the
measured DP/DT is shown to be 6.9 kPa/ C, while the predicted DP/DT
◦
from Eq. (9) at average P = 15411.5 kPa, and T = 10 ◦ C for un-restrained
pipe (due the presence of the five elbows) was calculated to be = 178
kPa/ C. Similar trend was obtained for the leak test, where the measured
◦
DP/DT is shown to be 87.1 kPa/ C, while DP/DT at average P = 14432
◦
10
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989
◦
kPa, and T = 9.44 ◦ C for un-restrained pipe was calculated by Eq. (9) to
be = 160 kPa/ C. The trend was opposite to the previous test, where here
◦
the measure DP/DT is lower than predicted. No leak was visually
observed using snoop-soap tester at fittings and weld location, and
hence it was concluded that the water temperature is not uniform along
the length of the 102 m long DN50 pipe assembly. In this case, no leak
was visually detected during the test, and hence it was concluded that
(similar to the previous DN150 test) the water temperature is not uni­
form along the length of the 102 m long DN50 pipe assembly.
7. Discussion and conclusions
The following summary of findings and general conclusions can be
drawn from the present work:
1. The relationship between changes in test pressure due to changes in
medium temperature, which is commonly denoted DP/DT is
dependent on two principal properties of the test medium, namely,
the isothermal bulk modulus and the coefficient of volumetric ther­
mal expansion of the test medium, along with four other less influ­
ential parameters of the pipe segment itself, namely, coefficient of
linear thermal expansion of the pipe material, Poisson ratio, Young’s
modulus and diameter to wall thickness ratio. Restrain vs. un-
restrain conditions of the pipe segments under hydrotesting gener­
ally have the least effects on DP/DT.
2. By far the most important parameter that has the highest influence
on DP/DT is the test medium isothermal bulk modulus followed by
the coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion of the test medium. It
was found that water-propylene glycol (PG) has the highest bulk
modulus compared to water-methanol, while pure water has the
least value. As such, testing with water-PG often poses a challenge as
any small variation in the water-PG temperature would result in a
relatively high change in pressure. This poses challenges during
hydrotesting in cold climates at sub-zero temperatures where pure
water cannot be used. Use of water-PG mixtures makes it difficult to
determine whether a drop in pressure is due to a leak or due a fluid
K.K. Botros et al.
Fig. 15. Pressure and temperature vs. time profiles during strength and leak test of DN900 above ground pipe segment (Test date: 20 July 2020).
Fig. 16. Pressure and temperature vs. time profiles during strength and leak test of DN150 Sch 40 above ground 15 m long pipe assembly (Test Date: 01
August 2020).
temperature change which following the models described in this
paper, can properly be determined from inference from measure­
ments of the external pipe wall and ambient temperatures.
3. The most important finding of the present work is that the measured
external pipe wall temperatures (ASME B31.3, 2018; ASME B31.4,
2019; ASME B31.8, 2018; DOE - 49 CFR Ch; DOE- 49 CFR Ch; CSA
Z662:19; Procedure for the Hydro, 2003; Khatami et al., 2020) are
generally not representative of the actual average test medium
temperature. The latter is the temperature needed for the DP/DT
evaluation to discern leak and to accept/reject test results. This has
been shown to be a critical issue during actual hydrotesting in the
field. One solution to alleviate this problem is to have a high fidelity
thermal transient model accessible to run the hydrotest conditions
overtime and discern the average test fluid temperature during the
hydrotest period. Another way is to measure the test fluid tempera­
ture directly, but as was pointed, access to the test fluid is not
available for multiple reasons discussed earlier in the paper. This is
issue has been investigated more rigorously in the present work, in
two ways.
4. The first investigation assumed no time allowed for temperature
stabilization, i.e. the hydrotest commences immediately after filling
11
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989
is completed and trapped air is bled off as described in (Kirkwood
and Cosham, 2000; Matta, 2017). Generalized charts were devolved
(not presented in this paper) based on extensive ANSYS thermal
transient simulations which reveals the actual test medium temper­
ature in relation to the measured external pipe wall temperature in a
normalized manner.
5. The second investigation assumed ample time for temperature sta­
bilization to occur after filling, such that the pipe wall temperature
and the test medium as well as the surrounding environment (soil or
air) are all at equilibrium and assumed to have reached the same
temperature before commencing the hydrotest procedure as recom­
mended in almost all standards (ASME B31.3, 2018; ASME B31.4,
2019; ASME B31.8, 2018; DOE - 49 CFR Ch; DOE- 49 CFR Ch; CSA
Z662:19; https://shop.standards.go, 2885; https://www.saiglobal.
com, 2006; An International, 2016). For buried pipe segments,
regardless of pipe size, ambient temperature variation does not
penetrate deep enough into the soil to affect either the pipe wall
temperature or the test medium temperature over the duration of
strength followed by leak tests (4 h each). But, for exposed pipes, the
situation is different, where it was found that both pipe wall tem­
perature and the test medium temperature track the ambient air
K.K. Botros et al.
Fig. 17. Pressure and temperature vs. time profiles during strength and leak test of DN50 Sch XS above ground 102 m long pipe assembly (Test Date: 06 June 2020).
temperature, albeit at different rates depending on the external heat
transfer coefficient, and hence the Bi number. A generalized corre­
lation (Eq. (19)) has been developed in terms of a dimensionless rate
of change of all three temperatures (ambient, external pipe wall and
test medium) as a function of Bi number up to certain dimensionless
time. Good agreement was demonstrated with field data of a DN900
pipe segment strength/leak test data from a recent hydrotest project.
6. The developed models and procedures were also compared against
two small pipe diameter pipes (DN150 and DN50) recently tests for
strength and leak tests at different locations and at different condi­
tions. It was observed consistently that model prediction of DP/DT
deviated from measured DP/DT. It was obvious that measurements of
pipe wall temperature were NOT at all representative of the average
temperature along the length of the respective pipe segments. In
these two tests, only one pipe wall temperature was measured at one
extreme end of the respective piping assembly that clearly did not
provide accurate indication representing the entire length of the
system.
7. The present work used ANSYS FEA methodology to solve the perti­
nent thermal transient governing equation of both buried and above
ground pipe segments. In this model, it is assumed that the convec­
tive motion of the test medium inside the pipe due to temperature
gradient (i.e. buoyancy driven flow) is neglected. While this is a
reasonable approximation, future work should account for possible
convective fluid motion via CFD analysis to determine the relative
accuracy of FEA vs. CFD results, particularly when a previous study
by Lanzafame et al. (2017) (Lanzafame et al., 2017) indicated that
CFD analysis outperforms FEM in capturing the internal convective
fluid motions. Future work should also address the optimum number
of temperature measurements to be taken during hydrotesting along
the pipe section, and the number and strategic location(s) depending
on the piping layout, particularly length, geometry, and surrounding
environment.
Credit authors statement
K.K. Botros: Principal Investigator, Problem Formulation, Governing
Equations, Model Development, Data curation, Formal analysis, Inves­
tigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Final Manuscript. J. Crowe:
Data curation, Formal analysis, ANSYS Simulations, Validation, Visu­
alization, Writing - review & editing, Writing - review & editing. V. Liu:
Conceptualization, Technical Guidance, Field Experience, Data
12
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989
curation, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing - review & edit­
ing. J. Lu: Conceptualization, Technical Guidance, Field Experience,
Field Data Collection, Data curation, Resources, Validation, Visualiza­
tion, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of a research program sponsored by TC Energy,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and permission to publish is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
AN INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE POWER SECRETARY of ENVIRONMENT and
NATURAL RESOURCES Official Mexican STANDARD NOM-007-ASEA-2016,
Transportation of Natural Gas, Ethane and Gas Associated with Coal Ore through
Pipelines.
ANSYS Mechanical, 2020. Release.
ASME B31.3, 2018. (Revision of ASME B31.3-2016) Process Piping. ASME Code for
Pressure Piping, p. B31.
ASME B31.4, 2019. (Revision of ASME B31.4-2016) Pipeline Transportation Systems for
Liquids and Slurries. ASME Code for Pressure Piping, p. B31.
ASME B31.8, 2018. (Revision of ASME B31.8-2016) Gas Transmission and Distribution
Piping Systems. ASME Code for Pressure Piping, p. B31.
Bahadori, A., Vuthaluru, H.B., 2009. Prediction of bulk modulus and volumetric
expansion coefficient of water for leak tightness test of pipelines. Int. J. Pres. Ves.
Pip. 86, 550–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2009.01.007.
CSA Z662:19, National Standard of Canada, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems.
DOE - 49 CFR Ch. I (10–1–11 Edition), 192—TRANSPORTATION of NATURAL and
OTHER GAS by PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS.
DOE- 49 CFR Ch. I (10–1–11 Edition), PART 195—TRANSPORTATION OF .HAZARDOUS
LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE.
Guignon, B., Aparicio, C., Sanz, P.D., 2010. Volumetric properties of pressure-
transmitting fluids up to 350 MPa: water, ethanol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol,
Castor oil, silicon oil, and some of their binary mixture. J. Chem. Eng. Data 55 (9),
3017–3023.
Hartono, A., Kim, I., 2004. Calculation of vapor-liquid equilibria for methanol-water
mixture using cubic-plus-association equation of state, trondheim. http://www.nt.
ntnu.no/users/haugwarb/KP8108_Phase_Equilibria/Essays/ardi_hartono_and_inn
a_kim.pdf.
Holman, J.P., 2009. Heat Transfer, tenth ed. McGraw-Hill.
https://shop.standards.govt.nz/catalog/2885.5:2012(AS%7CNZS)/scope.
https://www.saiglobal.com/PDFTemp/Previews/OSH/AS/AS3000/3700/3788-2006.
pdf.
K.K. Botros et al.
Huc, M., Zakelj, G., Urbic, T., 2015. Properties of methanol-water mixtures in a coarse-
grained model. Acta Chim. Slov. 3, 524–530.
Khatami, A., Kundral, S., VanGennip, K., 2020. Pass/Fail Criterion for HDPE Pipe
Pressure Testing Using Incompressible Fluid. SCS Eng. (n.d.). https://www.scseng
ineers.com/scs-advice-from-the-field-how-to-compensate-for-the-effect-of-the-amb
ient-temperature-variations-on-the-pressure-changes-within-the-pipe-during-hdpe-
pipe-pressure-testing-using-incompressible-fluid/. (Accessed 25 November 2020).
Kirkwood, M.G., Cosham, A., 2000. Can the pre-service hydrotest be eliminated. Pipes
Pipelines Int. 45, 5–19.
Kubota, B.Y.H., Tsuda, S., 1979. Specific volume and viscosity of methanol-water
mixtures under high pressure. Rev. Phys. Chem. Jpn. 49, 59–69.
Kume, D., Sakoda, N., Uematsu, M., 2005. An Equation of State for Thermodynamic
Properties for Methanol, Seventeenth Eur. Conf. Thermophys. Prop. , 5 - 8 Sept.
2005. Bratislava, Slovak Repub. http://www.ectp.sav.sk/.
Kunz, O., Wagner, W., 2012. The GERG-2008 wide-range equation of state for natural
gases and other mixtures: an expansion of GERG-2004. J. Chem. Eng. Data 57 (11),
3032–3091.
Lanzafame, R., Mauro, S., Messina, M., Brusca, S., 2017. Heat exchange numerical
modeling of a submarine pipeline for crude oil transport. Energy Procedia 126,
18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.048.
13
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 92 (2021) 103989
Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., McLinden, M.O., 2010. NIST Standard Reference Database
23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties - REFPROP. National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program,
Gaithersburg, Version 9.0.
Matta, L., 2017. Collective Effects of Leakage, Temperature Changes, and Entrapped Air
during Hydrostatic Testing. Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference,
Houston, TX, USA.
A Procedure for the Hydrostatic Pressure Testing of Marine Facility Piping, 2003. In:
https://www.coursehero.com/file/60697432/California-hydro-testing-procedure
pdf/.
Sagdeev, D.I., Fomina, M.G., Abdulagatov, I.M., 2017. Density and viscosity of propylene
glycol at high temperatures and high pressures. Fluid Phase Equil. 450 (25), 99–111.
Soetens, J., Bopp, P., 2015. Water–methanol mixtures: simulations of mixing properties
over the entire range of mole fractions. He J. Phys. Chem. B. 119, 8593–8599.
Zhuravlev, V.I., 1992. Structure of multiatomic alcohols and their solutions according to
the dielectric-spectroscopy data - equilibrium and dynamic properties of
propanediols. Zh. Fiz. Khim. 225–236.