NC -186 GS-D TO GOSP A 18” X 31 km Trunk Line Replacement

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION TEAM

AL-SHARARA OIL FIELD

24TH March 2023

Subject: HYDRO TEST FAILURE INVESTIGATION REPORTS

Introduction

Hydrostatic testing of pipelines is critical during construction and maintenance. It

is an important pre-commission test and quality assurance/quality control tool
that validates pipeline integrity prior to actual service with flammable fluids at
high pressures. this ensures that the required tensile strength can sustain the
operating pressure, and that the welds are defect free.

Case study example, metallurgical analysis was performed on a carbon steel

pipeline that leaked during hydrotesting. Inspection indicated the presence of a
defect at the electric resistance welded seam.

Material supplier
Witnessed QC assurance Inspection
Lloyds Certification

Transferring pipe from Tripoli port to site

All the arrived pipes were stacked in designated location, prior to executing the
work all the pipes are visually inspected and defective materials itemized and
separated , during the inspection both parties were involved (AOO & AOS) .in
addition all the damaged pipes are segregated, which required more in-depth
inspection , each pipe is checked ensuring the physical condition in addition it
was agreed to carried out visual internal and external inspection, Internal gauge
test on the ovality, bevel and dent inspection prior to sending pipe to site, all
anomalies are categorized in the below reports highlighting detailed defects ,
pipe numbers and heat numbers

All the work has been executed at site with Inspected and accepted pipe from
both parties, all construction activities have been performed as per the approved
procedure and specifications

Hydrotest failure investigation reports Page: 1

 NC -186 GS-D TO GOSP A 18” X 31 km Trunk Line Replacement
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION TEAM
AL-SHARARA OIL FIELD

About above subject, Investigation on the subsection -B 18” pipe line hydrotest
failure that occurred on March 23,2023
As shown below table attached, the hydrotest failed at a pressure point of 93.36
bar (1354psi) after 5 hours from starting pressurization, before reaching the 3rd
increment hold point as per procedure 105 brag.
The causes of the hydrotest failure was base metal fracture CRACK as shown in
Fig 1&2 Below) That was discovered.4.17km from B-Field towards D-Field

Hydrotest -Test procedure document Nc 186-22-04/PR/m903/-D REV 02

(22/03/2023Rev)
The date of the hydro-test March 20,2023

The time of the hydrotest Start at 10:32-End at 18:02

The time of the hydrotest failure 17:27

Test section Subsection-B (from KP-0.10 to KP-

7.88)
The location of the failure KP-4.17 (two meters away from the
joint number j:348)
The pressure at which point has been failed 93.36 bar (1354 PSI)
hydrotest

The pressure at which the hydrotest stopped -0.54 bar (-7.8PSI)

Cracked pipe information

Pipe N 1157
Heat N P7132V
Welded Date: 09/01/2023

For more clarification see below attached annex (figures, Curve, Table)

Hydrotest failure investigation reports Page: 2

 NC -186 GS-D TO GOSP A 18” X 31 km Trunk Line Replacement
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION TEAM
AL-SHARARA OIL FIELD

Hydrotest failure investigation reports Page: 3

 NC -186 GS-D TO GOSP A 18” X 31 km Trunk Line Replacement
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION TEAM
AL-SHARARA OIL FIELD

Hydrotest failure investigation reports Page: 4

 NC -186 GS-D TO GOSP A 18” X 31 km Trunk Line Replacement
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION TEAM
AL-SHARARA OIL FIELD

Hydrotest failure investigation reports Page: 5

 NC -186 GS-D TO GOSP A 18” X 31 km Trunk Line Replacement
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION TEAM
AL-SHARARA OIL FIELD

FIRST
HOLD POINT

SECOND
HOLD POINT

+`

Hydrotest failure investigation reports Page: 6

 NC -186 GS-D TO GOSP A 18” X 31 km Trunk Line Replacement
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION TEAM
AL-SHARARA OIL FIELD

PRESSURE
DROP OUT POINT

Conclusion

1) Failure occurred due to tensile overloaded at region of wall thinning caused by

manufacturing defects
2) The minimum wall loss measured at rapture surface was 0.24”
3) It was confirmed that the defect was formed due to manufacturing defect of the product

Prepared by
Construction lead inspector
Anees v Thaha
24/03/2023

Hydrotest failure investigation reports Page: 7