×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Purpose of a hydrostatic testing- Validity

Purpose of a hydrostatic testing- Validity

Purpose of a hydrostatic testing- Validity

(OP)
I've read serious furore over the purpose of such pressure testing, calling or guessing it as strength, full stress, proof, integrity, load test, confidence, second NDE, simulation, mock-up and so on. My question is towards a paper submitted by a Japanese company in one of the Pressure Vessels and Piping Conferences. This paper claimed that hydrotest did not support: structural adequacy of transient loading condition, local yielding helping/blending (autofrettage)stress risers, increase (deformation) weld flaws, and couple of more 'supposed' merits of a hydro. I wonder what happens to such claims/ papers in ASME. No doubt, this age-old practice is very much supported by industries. When considering the exemptions available in codes such as for golden welds (100% RT), I do think that there is room for 'thinking' to change. I know it's very difficult to prove that - 'just because we did not perform a hydro, there was a failure'. My purpose of this post is to know what could go wrong if I don't perform a hydro where I'm supposed to do? When any NDE is performed, we come out with a report saying that there is no defect of this nature present in this area. We also agree that a hydro test is not a leak test. Now, it's the question time: After a hydrostatic testing, are we supposed to feel/say that this equipment is free of..........?

RE: Purpose of a hydrostatic testing- Validity

No, not for final construction of boilers or pressure vessels. The problem is this, hydrostatic testing will most likely never be revoked because it does provide one useful purpose, and that is to check for defects missed during fabrication. It is relatively easy to perform, and it has been used since the early 1900's. Code committee members have developed a position that hydrostatic testing is a final backstop to ensure no gross defects in pressure retaining items. Volumetric NDE can miss flaws. I agree that hydrostatic testing will be here to stay in ASME B&PV code. In repair code space, like the NBIC, that battle has been won regarding limited usefulness of an in-service hydrostatic test.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources