首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping >Comparison of API 510 pressure vessels inspection planning with API 581 risk-based inspection planning approaches
【24h】

Comparison of API 510 pressure vessels inspection planning with API 581 risk-based inspection planning approaches

机译:API 510压力容器检查计划与API 581基于风险的检查计划方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

To ensure mechanical integrity, all pressure vessels shall be inspected at the intervals provided in inspection codes or based on a risk-based inspection (RBI) assessment. The RBI assessment may allow previously established inspection intervals to be extended. This paper describes the methodology, analysis and results of two RBI studies conducted on 293 pressure vessel components in two crude oil distillation units. Based on API RBI methodology in API 581 (2008), risk target concept was used for determining inspection dates. It was shown that when thinning is the major active damage, the RBI recommended intervals are as long as twice the API 510 intervals. This paper summarizes that, as a fundamental step in the risk calculation, RBI has a more defined methodology for evaluating equipment for multiple damage mechanisms and a more defined approach to specify the use of other inspection technologies beyond the traditional visual, ultrasonic, and radiography tests.
机译:为确保机械完整性,应按检查规范中规定的间隔或基于风险的检查(RBI)评估对所有压力容器进行检查。 RBI评估可以延长以前建立的检查间隔。本文介绍了对两个原油蒸馏装置中的293压力容器组件进行的两次RBI研究的方法,分析和结果。根据API 581(2008)中的API RBI方法,使用风险目标概念确定检查日期。结果表明,当细化是主要的主动损坏时,RBI建议的间隔时间是API 510间隔的两倍。本文总结说,作为风险计算的基本步骤,RBI提供了一种更加明确的方法来评估多种损害机制的设备,并且提供了一种更加明确的方法来指定使用传统视觉,超声波和射线照相测试以外的其他检查技术。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号