High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
(OP)
Hello All,
My company is very interested in building a test chamber to check pressure vessels (24” dia x 10ft long) pneumatically up to 770 psi for structural integrity. After that, we would follow up the structural test with a leak test capable of detecting 10E-9 to 10E-11 cc/min. The long term goal is to test vessels up to 42"dia x 24ft in another chamber
Can anyone point me to the appropriate codes (besides ASME Section VII, UG-90, 100, 101), as well as websites and other sources info on the design and construction of such a test facility?
Thanks.
My company is very interested in building a test chamber to check pressure vessels (24” dia x 10ft long) pneumatically up to 770 psi for structural integrity. After that, we would follow up the structural test with a leak test capable of detecting 10E-9 to 10E-11 cc/min. The long term goal is to test vessels up to 42"dia x 24ft in another chamber
Can anyone point me to the appropriate codes (besides ASME Section VII, UG-90, 100, 101), as well as websites and other sources info on the design and construction of such a test facility?
Thanks.





RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
http://www.absa.ca/newsletter/v07-2002/v7-iss2.pdf
EJL
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
TGS4- Indeed I do want to contain the projectiles. Safety is of paramount importance to me. One of the questions floating around in my head is "How thick do the walls need to be, and of what material?" I understand that this chamber and/or the (unoccupied) room it is located in would need to be capable of containing a significant explosion.
-Rick
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
For entertainment value, you might check out
http
Perhaps more extreme that you need though (grin).
SLH
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
Test chamber could be dug down sunken in ground, open above, preferably in relatively thinly populated area, or else protected by roof. What about noise protection and controlled venting if explosions?
Reconsider and test with liquid - water or other?
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
And also below in this forum:
pneumatic testing of fuel oil tank?
thread794-212847: pneumatic testing of fuel oil tank?
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
I may be posting further questions as my knowledge increases.
Rick
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
http://www.canpressmetalfab.com/files/home.html
click on the left hand side
"explosion chambers"
Looks like it IS quite the cadillac.
SLH
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
I tend to believe anything is possible IF you're willing to devote sufficient resources to the soulution. It appears to me that on the one hand there is the safety of performing a pneumatic test on a large vessel. I want to be able to sleep at night, and so do not wish to minimize the importance of this. On the other hand there are the issues of the time and expense of dealing with a hydro test. In the end, it comes down to whether the resources (time, money) needed to perform a safe pneumatic test are less than the resources needed to perform a safe hydro test. Compounding this is the desire to do something that everyone says can't (or maybe shouldn't) be done.
There is an assumption here at my organization that the resources needed for an acceptable hydro test are far greater than those needed for an acceptable pneumatic test.
Perhaps the first question to answer is: "What would it take to hydro test a vessel to 910 psi for R410A refrigerant applications, versus pneumatic to 770 psi?"
I now think I should start new threads, here and on the HVACR forums, with this as the question.
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
Regards,
EJL
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
A.
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
Thanks for your input. Your suggestion of extra nozzles for filling/draining is just the sort of input I need. Essentially, I wish I could have a brainstorming session with a bunch of experienced engineers. Alas, I seem to be the only engineer on this controversial project, hence I come to this forum.
Regarding putting a price on safety, I'm sorry if my ramblings seem to put too much emphasis on this aspect. I am aware that trying to equate dollars with the health and well being of individuals has been tried without success by more qualified persons than myself. That being said, risk is inherent in any project - even a project like my getting out of bed and driving to work. I do my best to keep the risks reasonable, and respect the fact that what seems reasonable to me may not seem so to everyone. This is the other reason why I'm glad to have this forum available: I know what groupthink is, and I know my job can be a hermetically sealed microcosm.
I thank you for helping me to stay honest and aware of my motivations.
-Rick
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
Having worked for a regulatory organization, safety is the concern without taking into account the dollar value. Being charged with the duty of safety by the government they must take that stand. If a variance to a requirement is to be issued, there had better be reasons other than cost involved.
More to your problem, what sort of contaminants can be tolerated in the R410A refrigerent? Have you looked into getting another organization to perform the cleaning after the hydrotest? I was involved in the estimate of a vessel which was to eventually contain a pyrophoric (reacts with water - term may be incorrect) substance where residual water was bad. There was a place that could adequately clean the vessel and then dry it. I know this may seem costly but it is then someone's problem other than yours. It might be worthwhile to look at what a test chamber would cost, and compare it to the cost of someone doing the cleaning.
Regards,
EJL
RE: High Pressure Pneumatic Test Chamber
I spent too much time thinking about this but what may want to consider is the NDT required for the category D welds. Please see UW-50 for this requirement.
If a vessel to to be pneumatically tested there is also a provision that no longer applies. UG-20(f) cannot be used as the vessel does not comply with UG-20(f)(2).
Just a few more things to think about.
Regards,
EJL