ENGINEERING CASE HISTORIES Case 34: Hydrotesting or pneumatic testing? There is a big difference in safety between the two T. SOFRONAS, Consulting Engineer, Houston, Texas this question comes up often during vessel modifications. Usu- ally the vessel foundation has not been designed for a water load oF the process doesn allow contamination with water. Project managements argument is thatthe vesel was designed for 2 gs presure so a pneumatic test over pressurization, to verify the soundness ofthe modification, shouldn't be a concern. This analysis was done to help explain why vessels should be fully hydrotested, localized hydrorested 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 cdo with safery andthe high energy involved when pneumatic pres- sure testing, Hydrotesting 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 wal section thar 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 wich air. Fig. I 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: ‘Compresibility of water can be presented asthe bulk modulus or B= ApIAVIV, where B = 3.12 x 10° Ib/in? From Fig. 1, V« Ah, MV = AB ce! Beam ~ lB “Therefore, che poténtal energy ofthe water is: PE. = ApB uur Next, using the ideal gas laws the potential energy of the com- pressed energy ofthe aris: Baie = HL ~ Parl P*Paan)] PE. = Apa, In real-life terms, it is far more effective to show how fast and how far abroken-out chunk wll Ay” through the plant before i lands, then to just say pneumatic testing is dangerous. By equating potential energy tothe kinetic energy we can solve for the velocity and use this velocity ina ejectory eaula- tion.! Units are inch, pound, second, g= 386 in,/sec? and for this example W = 25 Ibs. Distance traveled, 5 f, {Hom Page = 2 Water pressured 3 2 pest as ro Condition Velocity, fufec Vaai= (gpg) IW)", insec Here @ = 8 yar for water and 8, for air S= Vos 2a! i. We see that the 25-pound fragment or end cap will just drop a ‘couple of fet from where it was attached when pressurized with water. However, when pressurized with air it will travel a 215 felsec (147 mph) until ie comes to rest 76 fe away. Visions of a 25-pound projectile rocketing through a plant will usually receive the decision makers’ attentton. Often pneumatic testing 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 wel protected during such testing, BIBLIOGRAPHY Sons Anabel Trsblbaig of Pcs Machin sd Pras nl Indaing "el Wid Ce ne cy i “ re ON ORISA Tp ‘Tony Sofronas, PE. 2 consulting engineer located in Houston, Texas Ds Sofonae was lad mechanical engineet for {onMobl before is retierent. Information on his books, sem nav anc consulting are salable at htt mecharcleng neeingtelp com HYDROCARBON PROCESSING SEPTEMBER 2006 | 119,