ae Mego Lat OG ENGINEERING CASE HISTORIES ) an. 244 Case 34: Hydrotesting or pneumatic testing? "There is a big difference in safety between the two T. SOFRONAS, Consulting Engineer, Houston, Texas ally the vessel foundation has not been designed for a water load or the process doesn't allow contamination with water. Projece management's argument is thatthe vessel was designed for 4 gas pressure so a pneumatic test over pressurization, to verify the soundness of the modification, shouldnt be a concern. ‘This analysis was done to help explain why vessels should be fully hydrotcsted, localized hydrotested with blinds, or other ‘nondestructive inspection plans used, such as ultrasonic or X-ray instead of a pneumatic test, when possible. The discussion has to do with safety and the high energy involved when pneumatic pres- sure testing. Hydrocesting has other advantages over pneumatic testing, but these are not discussed here. For simplicity, consider a pressurized pipe with an end cap. ‘The end cap can also be thought of as a vessel wall section that breaks out and is acted on by the compressed water or gas pressure within, Well examine a pipe pressured up to p = 150 Ib/in2, using water and then compare this to it being pressured up with ait. Fig, 1 shows a volume that is compressed 8 amount and can be used to calculate the energy available. First the pressurized water potential energy is calculated: ‘Compressbilcy of water can be presented as the bulk modulus or B= Ap/AVIV, where B = 3.12 x 10° Ibvin2. T: question comes up often during vessel modifications. Usu- From Fig. 1, V=Ah, AV= AB pur Baocer= AplB ‘Therefore, the potential energy of the waters: PE. = APB caer ‘Next, using the ideal gas laws the potential energy of the com- pressed energy of the ai is Buy = Bll Pan! (PtP) PE = AB, In real-life terms, i is far more effective to show how fast and how fara broken-out chunk will “ly” chrough the plant before it lands, then to just say pneumatic testing is dangerous. By equating potential cnergy to the kinetic energy we can solve for the velocity and use this velocity ina trajectory caleula- tion.! Units are inch, pound, second, ¢ = 386 in./sec? and for this example W= 25 Ibs. Condition Velosity,flsec Distance traveled, S ft, from hivgne = 24 ‘Water pressured 5 2 Air pressured 75, 76 Veg = (2gpAg)W), in.fsec Hete @ = Bue for water and 8 i for ait S= Vas (Deg i, ‘We see that the 25-pound fragment or end cap will just drop a couple of feet from where it was attached when pressurized with ‘water. However, when pressurized with air it will eravel at 215 filsec (147 mph) until it comes to rest 76 fe away. Visions of a 25-pound projectile rocketing through a plant will usually receive the decision makers’ attention. ‘Often pneumatic resting cannot be avoided. When this is specified, safety and rigorous risk evaluations are required. Even with such plans in place, all involved should be standing far away and well protected during such testing. BIBLIOGRAPHY Solfonas, A Anaya! Toableonting "a Word Cae Sa, Jon Wey Pras Machinery and PsueVeele:Incuding me tSBN. OE ISBIT PD Tony Sofronas, PLE., is» consulting engineer located in Houston, Texas. Dr. Soonas was lead mechanical engineer for sonldcbil before his reiement. information on his books, sei= fats and consulting are avaiable at http iva mechanicaleng eernghelp com, HYDROCAREON PROCESSING SEPTEMBER 2006 | 119