Leak Testing When Revising Operating, Upset, and Design Pressures in Pressure Piping
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract A pressure equipment operator initiated a program to achieve compliance with a jurisdiction’s requirements for Overpressure Risk Assessment updates. The program was also initiated to provide clarifications and improvements in the pressure piping documentation where overpressure allowances were inherent in the design of heritage piping and equipment. Most of these heritage piping systems were designed between 1975 to 1995. During that period of time, it was a common industry practice to take advantage of the provision for variations per ASME B31.3 ¶302.2.4. As per this provision, it is acceptable for occasional, infrequent and short-in-duration upset events to exceed the design condition provided that all the requirements in ¶302.2.4 are met. The Overpressure Risk Assessment review of a large number of existing piping OPPSD systems recognized higher operating cases and higher overpressure upset cases than those in the original documentation. In most cases, the main reason for this inconsistency between the original and the recently calculated values is due to changes in API 520 / API 521 upset cases. Additionally, operating history, since facility start-up, provides data that demonstrates that upset events have occasionally exceeded the original values which are currently presented in the LDT. Updates to the original LDT are necessary to properly capture the experienced upset events, operating cases and, in some cases, design conditions. For heritage (pre-2013) pressure piping (PP) systems that require updates of the design pressure, the traditional margin provided between the new design pressure and the original leak test pressure as required by ASME B31.3 ¶345.4.2 will not be fully available to support the required rerate. The objective of this paper is to discuss whether another leak test, at a margin of 1.5 times new design pressure, would provide any additional value in terms of incremental safety. This is discussed in the context of pressure piping systems that have been in continuous successful service for between 25 and 43 years. The mechanical integrity of these systems is being ensured by monitoring and assessment activities that have been carried out within a comprehensive Pressure Equipment Integrity Program. The paper evaluates four different cases of the pressure piping systems that are in the scope of the program, discusses the purpose of leak testing in both construction and post-construction and lists potential risks associated with re-performing leak tests. The paper also provides recommendations for when a prior leak test is sufficient to demonstrate that a rerated piping system with a successful service history is suitable for the new service conditions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle