hole spanning under short-term hydrostatic pressure tests

2
Hole spanning under short-term hydrostatic pressure tests for 3 spray liner products for water service pipes Introduction The following fact sheet gives the results of 3 short‐ term hydrostatic pressure tests for hole spanning on two polyurea spray liner products by 3M‐Skotchkote 269 (S1) and Skotchkote 2400 (S2), and a new polyurethane spray liner product (S3). The S1 and S2 samples tested were both excavated from in service drinking water pipes, while the S3 sample was from a trial installation of the liner product on a new ductile iron pipe section. The main objective was to evaluate the failure pressures under an introduced defect in the host pipe (circular through‐wall hole) and to observe the failure mechanism in each case. Methodology Holes were bored at the center of the pipe to remove the cast iron and the cement mortar liner to expose the spray liner underneath. Figure 1 shows an example of testing for the S3 liner product hole spanning specimen. The pipes were then pressurised (short‐term) to failure (Figure 2). Before pressurising, pipes were held at a constant pressure (<200 kPa), to ensure strain gauges and transducers were recording. Figure 1: Hole‐spanning test setup for S3 lined pipe The bored hole sizes were as follows: S1: 25 mm S2: 25 mm S3: 30 mm Average liner thickness at location of failure: S1: 3.8 mm S2: did not fail at hole; failed at graphite patch S3: 2.6 mm Figure 2: Pressure vs. time chart for the hole spanning tests Results Failure characteristics Figure 3 shows failures of each of the pipes tested. The S1 and S3 liner product lined pipes failed at the hole, while the S2 did not. S1 is a ductile liner. Under pressure, the liner failed by a small crack at the center of the hole. S3 failed by blowout in a half moon shape (inner and edge failure). S2 failed in a longitudinal split after the host pipe split. The S2‐lined pipe failed at the opposite side of the hole, at a large corrosion patch covered by a thick graphite layer. In all tests, the spray lined pipes failed well above operational pressure (0.4 – 1 MPa). The data gathered from these tests will be used for numerical modelling and as a comparison to hole

Upload: others

Post on 17-Nov-2021

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Hole spanning under short-term hydrostatic pressure tests

 

 

Hole spanning under short-term hydrostatic pressure tests for 3 spray liner products for water service pipes

Introduction The  following  fact  sheet  gives  the  results  of  3  short‐term  hydrostatic  pressure  tests  for  hole  spanning  on two  polyurea  spray  liner  products  by  3M‐Skotchkote 269  (S1)  and  Skotchkote  2400  (S2),  and  a  new polyurethane  spray  liner  product  (S3).  The  S1  and  S2 samples  tested  were  both  excavated  from  in  service drinking water pipes, while the S3 sample was from a trial  installation of  the  liner product on a new ductile iron pipe section.  

The  main  objective  was  to  evaluate  the  failure pressures under an introduced defect in the host pipe (circular through‐wall hole) and to observe the failure mechanism in each case. 

Methodology 

Holes were bored at the center of the pipe to remove the cast iron and the cement mortar liner to expose the spray liner underneath. Figure 1 shows an example of testing for the S3 liner product hole spanning specimen. The pipes were then pressurised (short‐term) to failure (Figure  2).  Before  pressurising,  pipes  were  held  at  a constant pressure (<200 kPa), to ensure strain gauges and transducers were recording.  

 

 

Figure 1: Hole‐spanning test setup for S3 lined pipe 

 The bored hole sizes were as follows: 

S1: 25 mm 

S2: 25 mm 

S3: 30 mm  Average liner thickness at location of failure: 

S1: 3.8 mm 

S2: did not fail at hole; failed at graphite patch 

S3: 2.6 mm  

  Figure 2: Pressure vs. time chart for the hole spanning tests  

 Results  Failure characteristics 

Figure 3 shows failures of each of the pipes tested. The S1 and S3  liner product  lined pipes failed at the hole, while  the  S2  did  not.  S1  is  a  ductile  liner.  Under pressure, the liner failed by a small crack at the center of the hole. S3 failed by blowout in a half moon shape (inner and edge failure). S2 failed in a longitudinal split after the host pipe split. The S2‐lined pipe failed at the opposite  side  of  the  hole,  at  a  large  corrosion  patch covered by a thick graphite layer.  In all tests, the spray lined pipes failed well above operational pressure (0.4 – 1 MPa).  

The  data  gathered  from  these  tests  will  be  used  for numerical  modelling  and  as  a  comparison  to  hole 

Page 2: Hole spanning under short-term hydrostatic pressure tests

 

 

spanning  equations  that  are  being  developed  at Monash  University.  For  further  details  on  testing, please see the relevant testing reports.  

 

  

 Figure 3: Failure of each specimen