safety What can go wrong ! - Background KT Test plug sheared out of its threads while testing at 22,500psi. Threads on the KT ring were sheared as it was made of weaker material.
This was the second KT ring built the
first one passed tests. Damage to the floor of the test bay as result of the failure No Injuries were sustained and the test was conducted in a test bay under the correct procedures. What can go wrong! Design Calculations
Force On Plug : 635,748 lbf
Stress on Threads : 49,660 psi Min yield strength of Male Plug : 100,000 psi Min yield strength of Female KT Ring: 80,000 psi (per specification)
Design Factor on Female Thread : 0.934 ( Min yield per spec)
Design Factor based upon KT Material Cert : 1.08 (92,800psi) What can go wrong ! Calculations Design of the components was not thorough enough. Calculations for the test plug showed that the original design was dependant upon the individual material certificate of the component made, not the minimum yield of the material specification It is suspected that the design calculation was done after material was delivered and therefore the calculation was adjusted to use that material. Design Code was API 16A states that stress under Hydrostatic Proof Testing can be 90% yield or Design Factor 1.11. ASME and API 6A states that for similar Hydrostatic Proof Testing stresses should not exceed 83% of yield or design factor of 1.20 For this component it should have been designed to API 16A and not exceeded 90% In both cases the design factor was insufficient The minimum yield per specification( 80,000psi) should have been used NOT the material cert. As no account was made for future manufacture! Lessons Learned Calculations for Test Equipment Strength of material should always be based upon minimum yield specified by the specification for normal verification of design. The design factors should be based upon ASME 8/API 6A unless it is for riser components then API 16A can be used. Calculations for Test Tools must be as thorough as the Primary Operating components Assessment must be made of Test Components on whether their operating pressure will be regularly at the Hydrostatic Pressure Test Pressure, as in the case of Permanent Test Components for the Workshop , in which case their Design Operating Pressure (Maximum Working Pressure) should be the Hydrostatic Test Pressure of the equipment they are testing, and their primary stresses should not exceed 67% of yield at that maximum working pressure. Reference to TOPPS tutorial ENGDES 3.06 FAT and SIT test procedures will reference Safety Management Systems Procedure SMS 7.20.12 Safe Systems of Work Pressure Testing Test Equipment Design Guide You are responsible for checking your work! Designer/checker/engineer Make sure there are independent checks on your work, three signatures for release.
Design requires all deliverables to be verified and all test
components, in-house or third party. Calculations are required up front, test components should not be left to the last minute, particularly so that you cannot change the design if required! Design review if necessary, make sure related parts are checked i.e. female and male components. If necessary use the generic risk assessment VG GRA 0008 to guide you on the assessment of the risk, or seek guidance from you safety coordinator Neil Birnie. Test equipment is safety critical Test Equipment useful info Pressure Test Safety The stored energy in a hydro test is a 100 times less than the equivalent gas test. All gas tests must be in a pit and submerged in water Per the HSE calculations, Pressure vessel 1m dia , 20 mm thick, 80 mm thick end caps weighing 1716 kg for the cylinder, 490 for the end caps Fails during hydro test at 1000 bar (14,600 psi) 17kg fragment needs 13.4 mm steel to stop it. 340kg fragment needs 33mm steel to stop it. 490 kg end cap needs 15.1 mm steel to stop it. Equivalent gas test: 17kg fragment needs 57mm steel 340kg fragement needs 141 mm steel 490 kg end cap needs 65mm steel