Proof test

Afterwards, the vessels were pressurized according a proof test and a burst test with acoustic emission measurements. Acoustic emission data recorded during these tests are analysed in order to determine assessment criteria. The criteria are mainly based on ... 

The specific test was made into a specialized bunker of one partner of the CIAPES program. All the vessel was covered by AE sensors to locate witli accuracy AE sources. The corrosion defect was situated on the bottom of the vessel. The service pressure of the vessel was 8 bars, so the vessel was first submitted to a proof test at 12 bars. During this test, the pressure was increased with load holds in order to verify the assessment criteria. After the first hold at 4 bars, a cluster was located at the position of the defect. The number of events located in this cluster increased during all the test (figure 1). 

The high level of amplitude (> 60 dB) of these AE events indicated the presence of a evolving defect. After this proof test, the vessel was pressurized until burst. All along this test the activity of acoustic emission was very important, and divided in two phasis. 

No emission during holds was observed but the concentration of events in clusters and the high level of amplitude of events confirmed the results of the proof test. After 20 bars, the bottom of the vessel around the defect became silent and activity is observed in the high part of the vessel near welds. 

The defect was detected and located during the proof test, and acoustic emission could follow its evolution until 20 bars during the burst test. After the pressure, the evolution of defect stopped till the burst. This test confirm the capability of acoustic emission to detect the evolution of defect during a pneumatic test with a sufficiently wide margin relative to the burst pressure. 

Figure 1 location of acoustic emission source at the end of the proof test... 

CR-5094 Inspection and surveillance of metallic pressure vessels during proof testing Di. M. Chedaoui CETIM... 

It is possible to design a hydrostatic test in such a way that it probably will be a proof test of the vessel. This usually requires, among other things, that the test be run at a temperature as low as and preferably lower than the minimum operating temperature of the vessel. Proof tests of this type are run on vessels built of ultrahigh-strength steel to operate at cryogenic temperatures. 

Use staggered proof testing to reduce chances of common cause failure... 

Proof testing using non hazardous chemicals after making software changes... 

Proof Testing A run through the process substituting nonhazardous materials (e.g., water) to check for the adequacy of the equipment e.g., heating/cool-ing load, and to verify procedural steps. 

Proof testing This is conducted when the seismic requirements in the form of floor response spectra (FRS) or required response spectra (RRS) have been pre-determined, and consequently test response spectra (TRS) have been established. This test will verify whether the test object can withstand an earthquake, of this magnitude and characteristics. 

The first test to be considered is not an operational test, but the tn i major assembly proof test. 

The overspeed test is a form of proof test, in that it looks for a failure. In this case, it is a permanent deformation. Not all permanent deformations are failures. In fact, manufacturers have autofrettaged high tip speed impellers for decades. The fourth edition of API 617 was somewhat misleading as it identified the bore as the only critical area. On... 

The most straightforward way of proof testing the equipment would be to reproduce site conditions completely. Under such conditions, the testing would easily establish if the compressor performance requirements are met and if the driver and support systems function as intended and are adequate for the purpose. 

Hoses to be indelibly marked to indicate the substances for which it is intended, its safe working pressure, proof-test pressure, date tested, and maximum or minimum service temperature. 

As to the dollar-value of the Arsenal, its facilities are valued at over 500,000,000. The nature of these facilities varies, from the conventional to the nuclear. Conventional ammunition production lines, control laboratories and inspection systems are maintained in stand-by and are occasionally used in experimental or pilot-lot production. Nuclear weapons ammunition, components and devices are developed and produced in the. necessarily special research laboratories, proof-testing facilities and production and pilot assembly lines... 

When the required thickness of the vessel component parts cannot be determined by calculation in accordance with the methods given, the codes and standards require that a hydraulic proof test be carried out. In a proof test the stresses induced in the vessel... 

Another instability mode of interest is due to the flow regime itself. For example, it is well known that the slug flow regime is periodic and that its occurrence in an adiabatic riser can drive a dynamic oscillation (Wallis and Hearsley, 1961). In a BWR system, one must guard against this type of instability in components such as steam separation standpipes. The design of the BWR steam separator complex is normally given a full-scale, out-of-core proof test to demonstrate that both static and dynamic performance are stable. 

SIL1 (PFD = 10-1 to 10 2) These SIFs are normally implemented with a single sensor, a single logic solver, a single final control element, and requires periodic proof testing. 

Safety is known. Most DOD standard designs have been proof-tested" by exposure of a test structure to the explosive effects of a nearby detonation. The worst-case test condition is depicted in Figure 2. 

Since a device can fail at any time during its life, periodic proof tests are performed to demonstrate the functionality of the SIS. Proof tests are covered by operation and maintenance procedures that ensure that the test is done correctly, consistently, and safely and that the device is returned to a fully operational state after test. Each test serves as an opportunity for personnel to see the SIS in action and to validate the procedures associated with its operation. 

C Recommended Practices for Proof Testing of Pipelines in Place. 228... 

Precautionary Considerations Alternative Rules for Evaluating Stress Range Recommended Practices for Proof Testing of Pipelines in Place Estimating Strain in Dents Sample Calculations for Branch Reinforcement in Piping Welded Branch Connections and Extruded Headers in Pipeline Systems... 

When such studies indicate the facility is in unsatisfactory condition, a planned program shall be initiated to abandon, replace, or recondition and proof test. If such a facility cannot be reconditioned or phased out, the maximum allowable operating pressure shall be reduced commensurate with the requirements described in Part PL. 

NONMANDATORY APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR PROOF TESTING OF... 

At the present time, there is a fair understanding about the initiation of RPTs in various systems, but in some instances, particularly for metal-water accidents, the theory is poorly developed and untested in controlled laboratory experiments. The area of escalation of a small-scale RPT to a large, coherent explosion has been developed into a logical picture, but again proof tests on a large scale are not available. 

Tensile testing or a hardness test is a basic requirement of most metal specifications. Some product specifications also require impact-testing, bend and other ductility tests, proof testing, flange or flare tests. The size of the sample may limit which tests can be performed. Macro, superficial, and micro-hardness tests are routinely done in failure analysis even if the original product specification did not require them. 

---