{"title":"在压力管道中修改操作压力、破坏压力和设计压力时进行泄漏检测","authors":"Trevor G. Seipp, Dina Kudzhak, Boyd Mckay","doi":"10.1115/pvp2022-85641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 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.\n 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.\n 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.\n 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.","PeriodicalId":23700,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Computer Technology and Bolted Joints; Design and Analysis","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leak Testing When Revising Operating, Upset, and Design Pressures in Pressure Piping\",\"authors\":\"Trevor G. Seipp, Dina Kudzhak, Boyd Mckay\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/pvp2022-85641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n 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.\\n 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.\\n 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.\\n 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 2: Computer Technology and Bolted Joints; Design and Analysis\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 2: Computer Technology and Bolted Joints; Design and Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/pvp2022-85641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 2: Computer Technology and Bolted Joints; Design and Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/pvp2022-85641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
一家压力设备运营商启动了一项计划,以满足管辖区对超压风险评估更新的要求。该计划还开始提供澄清和改进压力管道文件,其中超压允许在传统管道和设备的设计中是固有的。这些传统管道系统大多是在1975年至1995年之间设计的。在此期间,利用ASME B31.3¶302.2.4的变化条款是一种常见的行业惯例。根据此规定,只要满足¶302.2.4中的所有要求,就可以接受偶尔,不频繁和持续时间短的破坏事件超过设计条件。在对大量现有管道OPPSD系统进行的超压风险评估中,发现了比原始文件中更高的操作情况和超压破坏情况。在大多数情况下,原始值和最近计算值不一致的主要原因是由于API 520 / API 521混乱情况的变化。此外,自设施启动以来的运行历史提供的数据表明,扰动事件偶尔会超过LDT中当前显示的原始值。对原始LDT进行更新是必要的,以便正确地捕捉所经历的干扰事件、操作情况,以及在某些情况下的设计条件。对于需要更新设计压力的传统(pre-2013)压力管道(PP)系统,ASME B31.3¶345.4.2要求的新设计压力与原始泄漏测试压力之间提供的传统余量将无法完全用于支持所需的比率。本文的目的是讨论在新设计压力的1.5倍的范围内进行另一次泄漏测试是否会在增加安全性方面提供任何额外的价值。这是在压力管道系统的背景下讨论的,这些系统已经成功地连续使用了25到43年。这些系统的机械完整性是通过监测和评估活动来确保的,这些活动是在一个全面的压力设备完整性计划中进行的。本文对项目范围内的四种不同的压力管道系统进行了评估,讨论了施工和施工后进行泄漏测试的目的,并列出了与重新进行泄漏测试相关的潜在风险。该文件还提供了一些建议,说明什么时候预先的泄漏测试足以证明具有成功使用历史的参考管道系统适合新的使用条件。
Leak Testing When Revising Operating, Upset, and Design Pressures in Pressure Piping
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.