tusharpatil9983
Industrial
- Jun 17, 2016
- 2
Hello,
I am seeking guidance on Hydrostatic seat testing. Currently, our testing procedure is as follows:
Step 1: Fill the cavity until water comes out from the vent port and then close the valve.
Step 2: Apply the hydrostatic test pressure from seat A (test pressure is 1.1 times the rated pressure).
Step 3: Observe the pressure on the gauge and visually inspect the vent port. (As cavity is filled if seat A is leaking then water will come-out of vent port)
I have two questions:
Is the above-mentioned test process in compliance with API 6D and API 598 standards? Or there is a different approach to inspect the hydrostatic test.
Following the above test procedure, we observed valve leakage visually (approximately 2-3 drops/5 minutes) from both sides individually. However, there was no leakage found in the Pneumatic seat test at 6 bar, and no leakage was found in the low-pressure Pneumatic seat test at 1 bar. How should we interpret these results to determine whether the valve is acceptable or not?
I am seeking guidance on Hydrostatic seat testing. Currently, our testing procedure is as follows:
Step 1: Fill the cavity until water comes out from the vent port and then close the valve.
Step 2: Apply the hydrostatic test pressure from seat A (test pressure is 1.1 times the rated pressure).
Step 3: Observe the pressure on the gauge and visually inspect the vent port. (As cavity is filled if seat A is leaking then water will come-out of vent port)
I have two questions:
Is the above-mentioned test process in compliance with API 6D and API 598 standards? Or there is a different approach to inspect the hydrostatic test.
Following the above test procedure, we observed valve leakage visually (approximately 2-3 drops/5 minutes) from both sides individually. However, there was no leakage found in the Pneumatic seat test at 6 bar, and no leakage was found in the low-pressure Pneumatic seat test at 1 bar. How should we interpret these results to determine whether the valve is acceptable or not?