
Technical Bulletin # P-12
The Pros And Cons Of Destructive
vs.
Nondestructive Pipe Testing

THE PROBLEM:
By far, most investigations into the
status of a piping system are prompted by the sudden appearance of some
operating problem. This may be in the form of a major failure, a minor leak, a
restricted flow condition, or the accumulation of rust deposits in the tower
pan or strainers.
Identifying the problem, determining its
extent within the piping system, and assessing the level of threat to building
operations then falls upon choosing the correct method of investigation.
Resolving the problem typically requires far more effort and expense.
Finding those answers typically begins as
a choice between using nondestructive (NDT) instrument based testing or
destructive metallurgical analysis - with each offering information and insight
not available in the other. For many corrosion related problems, both forms of
testing may be required. In others, one method will offer substantial benefits
in either information gained, time and effort, investigative coverage, or money
saved.
THE SOLUTION:
Choosing the best method of investigation
must first begin with a careful review of the problem itself.
Generally, the more defined the problem
appears to be, such as at a localized joint, seam split, pinhole, or weld
failure, the more appropriate an intensive metallurgical review. Problems which
have led to the removal or repair of a failed component automatically present
themselves for a metallurgical review as a first step.
Where the exact source of a problem is
not obvious, such as the appearance of rust and chip scale in the tower pans,
nondestructive ultrasonic testing (UT) offers the best option by providing a
thorough assessment of the entire piping system for remaining wall thickness
and corrosion rate. With many corrosion problems being related to pipe
location, direction of flow, and physical orientation, ultrasonic testing
generally provides the best initial look at the different forms of corrosion
activity which can often coexist within the same piping system.
The major advantage of UT testing is
cost, followed by the high degree of coverage possible and, of course,
convenience. A quality laboratory analysis of pipe, necessary if a reliable
report is desired, typically ranges between $1,500 and $2,000 per sample. Add
to that fee the labor cost to shut down, drain the pipe, cut out and replace
the spool piece with new stock, retreat the system, etc., and your total cost
to metallurgically test an individual sample can easily exceed $5,000. For
largest diameter pipes, critical 24/7 operations, or difficult to access
locations, cutting out pipe is not even a remote possibility.
It is primarily due to the difficulty and
overall cost of metallurgical testing that so few pipe samples are typically
submitted for lab analysis. This encourages the very dangerous practice of
generalizing the condition of an entire HVAC or other piping system based upon
the metallurgical analysis of one or two random samples.
Ultrasonic testing, on the other hand,
can be easily performed throughout an entire building property to provide an
almost comprehensive wall loss, corrosion rate, and remaining service life
assessment. For the same cost of removing and metallurgically testing one 12
in. pipe sample, ultrasound can provide detailed information relating to 50 or
more individual locations from building top to bottom. With multiple tests
performed at each location, a typical UT piping investigation may involve 3,000
or more individual wall thickness measurements.
Ultrasonic testing does, however, have
its limitations.
While providing precise wall thickness
dimensions and some indication of the inside pipe surface profile, ultrasonic
testing cannot offer a view of the actual interior. Such information is
critically important when surface deposits exist, or where microbiologically
influenced corrosion (MIC) is suspected. In some examples of very random forms
of corrosion, such as often exist in galvanized or copper piping systems, UT
may be totally incapable of detecting such problems.
Ultrasonic testing excels at providing a
preliminary assessment of a piping system where no information was previously
available. It is frequently used as a means to identify the most ideal or
representative piping locations to be later removed for metallurgical testing.
Where a specific pipe failure has already occurred, metallurgical testing can
be used to first determine the exact cause - followed by a system wide
ultrasonic evaluation to identify the extent of similar corrosion
conditions.
The advantages of each methods of testing
are:
Nondestructive - Ultrasound
- Low Cost
- No Pipe Removal Necessary
- Fast And Convenient - Immediate
Answers
- No Downtime
- More Thorough Coverage Of The Piping
System
- Enables Statistical Data Analysis
- More Thorough Overall Piping
Evaluation
- Enables Repeated Thickness Measurement &
Comparison
- Ideal For Property Acquisition
Surveys
Nondestructive - Ultrasound
- Provides Visual Inspection &
Documentation
- Answers Specific Questions
- Can Identify Microbiologically Based
Corrosion
- Can Identify A Specific Cause Of
Failure
- Provides Chemical Analysis
- Identifies Non Corrosion Related Failures -
Fatigue, Erosion, etc.
- Can Identify Specific
Microorganisms



