pegus
Aerospace
- Mar 18, 2015
- 67
Good day,
I have worked validating chambers in which they performed pneumatic test, in which a component is filled with air and pressurized. For this validation there are tools that calculate the required vent area in case a decompression occurs, I understand that this is due to the air is highly compressible and the energy stored during a pneumatic test is greater than a hydrostatic test.
But I wonder what happens when a hydrostatic test is being validated (component filled and pressurized with water). If I understand correctly as the water is nearly non-compressible there is not much energy stored, and as soon as a failure occurs on the tested component, the water quickly decompresses and we dont have any air expanding and hitting the chamber. Do to this I have the following doubts:
1.-Do we need to consider any vent area for hydrostatic test?
2.-Do we need to take in consideration any possible projectile derived from the hydrostatic test? we do this for pneumatic, but I wonder if we need to follow the same path for hydrostatic test.
I would appreciate if you can recommend any reference to research more about it.
Thanks in advance,
I have worked validating chambers in which they performed pneumatic test, in which a component is filled with air and pressurized. For this validation there are tools that calculate the required vent area in case a decompression occurs, I understand that this is due to the air is highly compressible and the energy stored during a pneumatic test is greater than a hydrostatic test.
But I wonder what happens when a hydrostatic test is being validated (component filled and pressurized with water). If I understand correctly as the water is nearly non-compressible there is not much energy stored, and as soon as a failure occurs on the tested component, the water quickly decompresses and we dont have any air expanding and hitting the chamber. Do to this I have the following doubts:
1.-Do we need to consider any vent area for hydrostatic test?
2.-Do we need to take in consideration any possible projectile derived from the hydrostatic test? we do this for pneumatic, but I wonder if we need to follow the same path for hydrostatic test.
I would appreciate if you can recommend any reference to research more about it.
Thanks in advance,