24&quot; Fitting Catastrophic Failure during Integrity Pressure Testing

Home
Safety Info
- Safety Info Posts
  
  Incident Alerts (2011-2018)
  Chemical Process Safety (PSM/RMP)
  
  PSM & RMP Citations / Analysis
  Human Factors Engineering
  
  Permit Required Confined Spaces
  Lockout/Tagout
  OSHA Compliance Info
  Respiratory Protection
  Photo of the Week (2011-2018)
  Video of the Week (2011-2018)
  Emergency Response
  Hazardous Materials
  Safety Metrics
  Safety Alerts
  Safety Talks
  Seatbelts and Impaired Drivers
  Motivational Safety Materials
  Holiday Safety
  Combustible Dust
  Flammable Liquids
  Flammable Liquid Videos
  LPG / Propane Safety Videos
  General Safety Topics
  Impaired Driving Information
  Safety Management System (SMS)
- Safety Shorts by Matt Bunner
Memberships
- NEW and RENEWAL Membership Manual Payment Options
- Free Memberships
Consulting
Partners
- Corporate Partners
- Government Partners
Contact Bryan

Details: Parent Category: Safety Info Posts; Category: Safety Alerts; Published: 12 May 2011

UPDATED on 5/19/11 @ 9:02 p.m. EST

This incident occurred 4 May 2011 on a pipeline project during a hydro-test of new piping.

Comments

+1 #14 Hydrotest Engineer 2013-09-03 08:30

All this comments show lack of competency, the pressure test is a mechanical test, who care where come from the pipe, if is American can be notice because of the approach Americans have in doing things.For Rob F, which hydrotest you see? a 1"? I Can guarantee you if the line was underground can have been devastating.
The cause of the rupture can have been from bad material to a cowboy approach of the hydrotest team.

+3 #13 Bill Badeaux 2012-08-22 17:02

Hydro testing is supposed to be done with the vessel completely void of air. Air is compressible, water is not. This incident should never have hurt anyone. When catastrophic failure occurred,the pressure should have instantly gone to zero. The only sound that should have been heard would have been a "Tick"... Not an "Explosion" such as a gun shot. That sound was that of the compressed air evacuating the pipe. Those folks were hurt because the test was not conducted void of all air.

+2 #12 Rob F 2011-11-17 00:40

It is hard to understand how the water could have caused so many injuries. I have seen hydrotest failures and usually the release of water is quite small, given its non-compressibility. The other aspect that is surprising is that the pipe work doesn't seem to have moved from the wooden props due to the water release.

+1 #11 Big Al 2011-09-22 03:06

Quoting dewitt corley gfpipe:

...manufactured anywhere other than the great US of A you need to reevaluate your work ethics.

Really? Only the USA?
Spain, Germany, Itlay, Korea, Japan?
Not happy unless it's American? What about Canadian suppliers close enough?
Congratulations on being proud of your country but try and combine that pride with not sounding like a ignorant tosser.

-1 #10 dewitt corley gfpipe 2011-09-21 14:00

i have only one question, where was this fitting manufactured ? are we putting cost ahead of safety ? if we are this is wrong we can easily recoop the cost after start up of pipeline rather than injuring our co-workers in which I value more than cost at anytime, if you don't care for your emloyees and this is manufactured anywhere other than the great US of A you need to reevaluate your work ethics.

+1 #9 Barry Graham 2011-05-26 04:22

I believe the following steps are required:
Remove the failed bend.
Perform chemical/Mechanical tests on the material.
Review post failure material test results against those shown on the supplied material test certificate. If the material tests on the failed bend do not reflect those as shown on the material certificate for the bend, then you need to dig further, if it transpires that failed material has been sold as meeting all the purchasers specification requirements, yet in no way matches the supplied material certificate, then someone has a case to answer. In the end the tests will tell you what you need to know, if on the other hand falsifcation of material certificates, or substitution of substandard pipe fittings in lieu of the specified and requisitioned pipe bend that was supplied is found and proven, then industry has to be put on notice which country, manufacturer, supplier, sold the substandard item. That way get them off their bidders list.

+1 #8 Big Al 2011-05-20 01:37

I understand scrubbing names to protect the innocent but if the RCA was to identify the elbow as having a materials defect i think it would be in the public interest to know where it was manufactured, if not the specific name of the foundry company.

+1 #7 Bryan Haywood 2011-05-20 01:18

All that I got was what you see. I did receive a little more info in a different write up from a known and very reliable source. I scrub company names and specifics like worker names and such, as it is NOT relevant to the incident facts.

I do not yet know where this occurred or if an RCA was done. Usually I get the e-mail within a day or two of the incident and then a month or two later the formal write up will arrive, which I will post ASAP once I receive it.

Bryan

#6 Big Al 2011-05-20 00:27

Sorry but this report simply doesn't make sense.
Where was this incident, what quality/safety systems were in place, what was the source of the materials?
As someone who makes a living pressure testing 80ft of 24" s30 @ 2000psi is not a big test.
The elbow clearly has a material defect as should be well within it's design to hold 2000 psi, was it supplied with a mill cert? stamped by who?
All that said, why were 4 guys standing next to an elbow? What would this mean "test equipment which was propelled by the rush of water"? The rush of water would be out of the elbow onto the ground there would not be anything to propel.
Exclusion zones, blast shields, containment units, test shelters? Yes, yes, yes.
But this bad report is worse than no report.

+1 #5 David Neufeld 2011-05-18 18:13

Does anybdoy know what caused the failure. Was there a RCA done on this?

-1 #4 Rob Marson 2011-05-17 13:56

This is an example of why all pressure tests when possible should be performed with a non-compressible liquid. If this test had been a pneumatic test it would have likely resulted in more severe injury and very likely death.

-1 #3 Vic M 2011-05-17 11:08

I would hope that out of this incident comes some direction for human protection against such injury. Maybe a portable plexiglass booth or greater minimum distances from test subject to observers. Who can predict what will fail such that observers can avoid the area? No one, so there must be some protection that everyone stands behind IF THEY HAVE TO BE THERE.

-1 #2 Ron Whited 2011-05-16 16:46

Very interesting. I had no idea that this piping was tested at 2160 psi. I'm curious if it is common to see failures at this same location where the pipe bends? Seems as though that would be the potential weak spot.

#1 Vitor Pombo 2011-05-14 08:52

Safety today,
start whit you anywere

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

You have no rights to post comments

JComments