I recently witnessed a pressure test followed by the leakage test.

Pressure dropped from 161psi to 159psi for 5,710 ft of 8-inch DI pipe. Is there a way for me to verify the leakage (7.5 gal) theoretically? I'm suspicious of the leakage number because they pulled the suction line out of the water tank used to pump the line up....and I suspect air got in the suction line and messed with the test. Thanks for any help you can provide! Additionally be suspicious if the contractor sees an instantaneous jump on the gauge and sucked air as you describe as the system can become air locked and is pointless after that. Contractors try everything from a "secret" buried valve or curbstop to pass if a line has become troublesome. Pay careful attention to the setup and make sure you understand the location of every valve, hydrant, and blowoff. I fear a reader to this thread might come out of it with some misunderstanding of the specific test it appears was performed, as well as the complexity in general of hydrostatic testing issues. To begin with my reading of the formula as well as tables of C600 tells me that when make-up water must be pumped back into an 8" ductile iron pipeline 5,710 feet long tested at say 160 psi, the ALLOWABLE "testing allowance" for a two hour test per this standard should not exceed: L=(2 hrs) (5,710)(8)160^.5/148,000 or 7.81 gallons. [It appears the contractor in this case for whatever reason pumped only 7.5 gallons back in, that would appear to be a "pass" at least per the AWWA standard .] With all due respect also to some of the verbiage and terminology in references in this thread, as well as in some of the responses, I feel compelled to make the following additional comments related to the further, original question in general of "calculating leakage". In my opinion, while it is possible to do all manner of calculations e.g. with "bulk modulus of compressibility" of water and elastic stretching of pipes etc. it is generally not really practical to "calculate leakage" in buried pipeline tests (except maybe in some very HIGHLY controlled test conditions of vessels and limited pipelines). This is due to the following realities, some that may really be common to installation of pipelines of all materials: 1. Despite best intentions/design, most rigorous or expensive installation/construction, and inspections etc., pipelines are not necessarily laid precisely with regard to either the horizontal or e.g. vertical lines on plans etc. 2. Similar to the realities/imperfections of "1.", air valves and/or other air release mechanisms etc. are not necessarily always installed precisely at the top or apex of all local, vertical crests that may happen by design, or inadvertently in the installation of pipelines. 3. Due to the combination of "1." and "2.", some air inevitably becomes trapped in pipelines. 4. As most venerable standards and specifications also require that pipelines be filled, e.g. in preparation for hydrostatic testing "slowly" [defined in some as at velocities <1 fps (0.3mps)], it is also a reality (at least when high velocity flushing is not accomplished prior to hydrostatic testing) that that any unintentionally trapped and unvented air will simply not be removed (or "scavenged by sufficiently high flow velocity) at the time the (in effect combination air and water containing) pipeline is pressurized in hydrostatic testing. 5. While trapped air may or admittedly may not cause any sort of noticeable problems in subsequent hydrostatic text results, it is well known that it CAN wreak literal havoc in others. In other words, pipelines that contain trapped air can appear in various fashions to

sometimes fail hydrostatic testing criteria (incidentally either raising or falling in pressure, or requiring excessive make-up water!), even though they really have no leakage! 6. For this reason, it is also stated in many long-standing specifications that the installer should remove most or all air (a requirement that appears, at least in many circumstances, sometimes easier said than done and some incongruous with the realities of 1-4!) 7. Unlike water, that as you note is relatively "incompressible", air is instead highly compressible, and air is also highly volume or pressure (if contained as in a closed hydrostatic test) responsive to changes in temperature in accordance with "Boyle's", "Charles'" and "Gay Lussacs'" et al laws/principles. Thus if (indeed probably instead "when", in the case of much testing that is of rather long duration) there are any temperature changes this will be accompanied by inevitable changes in pressure etc. and/or disproportionate requirements for make-up water etc., that do not have anything to do with "leakage". 8. It may be tempting to just assume that pressurized air is just like pressurized water (the old "pressure is pressure" argument), and therefore will not meaningful affect test results. However, this argument appears to neglect yet another phenomena associated with air/water mixes, that being that when there is no separating membrane air is also somewhat free also go into and out of "solution", and this in turn is probably also influenced by various drivers/variables of pressure and changing temperature etc. (not to mention the locations of at least any large columns of air e.g. from the pressurizing end etc.). While much at least surface source water is already "saturated" with air, this may not be true of all filling water sources, and also other conditions. In this regard I saw a writing many years ago (I think from a manufacturer of air valves), "A typical 1-mi (2-km) long pipeline of any diameter that has been supposedly vented of air will, in most instances, still contain enough dissolved air to completely fill over 100 ft (30 m) of the pipe." Likewise, some water can soak into cement mortar linings of some types of pipe, also over time/pressure. 9. Lastly, it is also possible that there can be slight movement, settlement, or some extension of pipelines due to installation and/or Bourdon effects etc., again that has nothing necessarily to do with leakage but that would change the test volume and manifest itself in at least some loss of pressure during a long-term test. I think many of these practical realities were not lost on at least the formulators of venerable standards that have existed for decades, e.g. ANSI/AWWA C600 for the installation and testing of iron pipelines. In this regard, if after more than 2 hours a particular closed off small diameter pipeline still holds basically a 160 psi level of pressure, while only losing a pound or two of water pressure, I suspect many Owners or installers of pipelines of many materials would probably be pretty happy with such an apparently tight line. As psnyder notes/quotes above, the C600 standard indeed states, "Testing allowance shall be defined as the maximum quantity of makeup water that is added into a pipeline undergoing hydrostatic pressure testing... IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PRESSURE within 5 psi (34.5 kPa) of the specified test pressure (after the pipeline has been filled with water and the air has been expelled*)." While I guess I understand your perception of a second required test (you call "leakage" test) and I guess you may or may not have any very slight seepage in this mile plus length of buried piping based on your results of that second test, see my items 1-8), if literal "C600" is the required testing specification it would appear in your case that based on the original testing ABSOLUTELY NO WATER WAS REQUIRED to be pumped back "in order to maintain..." (of course I added the caps in the quote above) Thus, this standard in and of itself does not really state that the line must be pressurized a second time e.g. for a "leakage test", unless the line pressure is falling below the required test pressure minus 5 psi (in your case say 160 psi -5psi =155 psi?); then, and only then, would you be specifically directed to pump it back up and measure make-up water.

Now with regard my statement that I suspected many folks might be happy with a small line, at least pretty much full of water, holding pressure this tightly, I recently had occasion not long ago to myself to hydrostatically test a small exposed pipeline of predominantly flexible plastic piping (that was supposed to be "50-psi rated") about 45' long that had a bunch of fittings and valves etc. My first pressure test after slow filling to 35-40 psi test pressure failed miserably, with the pressure dropping off very rapidly once the line was closed off. I pumped it up again and the same thing happened. As I could not see any drips, but I did suspect there was some air trapped at locations of the piping, I eventually decided to "soap" all of my connections as well as my end ball valve closures (and indeed I found an air leak in one threaded connection). Once I fixed this problem, I pumped up and valved off this pipeline (that I then knew had no leaks) up yet again this time to 35 psi, and still this pipeline lost 5.3 psi in 2 hours. As I knew I had a good bit of air entrapped in this line, I decided to run yet another test, this time removing the air with high velocity water flow before I valved the line off. This time my closed and obviously then drip-tight little pipeline held at least a little better, but still lost pressure to a 30.4 psi gauge reading after 2 hours (I guess due to inelastic swelling and/or stretching of this plastic pipe!) One thing that ran through my mind is what would I have known, or suspected, if this were a buried pipeline and I could not as easily do the diagnostic and remedial work? In looking at manufacturers' field hydrostatic testing guidelines for example for polyethylene pipes often perceived to be alleged "leakfree", I have found that the make-up water allowance for testing such pipelines is in reality many times greater than that for ductile iron water pipelines (in the case at least of buried piping, how much of that much more liberal make-up water allowance they know is the result of some sort of precise swelling or stretching of the pipes, and how much might be due to air effects or leaking out of imperfect fusions or mechanical connections etc.?, would appear to be somewhat of a mystery). Let me know if I misunderstand any of the conditions of your particular tes