Sulfide Stress Cracking Test (Proof Ring)

Test seems to work? No yes? What did you expect?

Contractor build the vessel, all good! Yes no? Were they meant to observe the test with a camera? Whats in the scope? Did you think of a camera?

What does NACE say? You have the standard there, right?

When the ring cracked it seems that you now have a metalurgical test to do, to decide whether or not that was sulphur cracking.

I recommend doing the above and another test with another material that you or Nace deems more suitable for your application.

Procedure, procedure, procedure.

Make a couple and win the price of success!

But then it all begs the questions what else on the test parameters is unknown and whether or not the test is valid. What else can you tell us?

As per the NACE TM0177 and the test procedure the test should be monitered daily. and they only moniter the temperature.

Why?

Why was the temperature not monitored in accordance with the test protocol?

the temperature was monitored in daily basis... but as I know there apparatus which indicate the specimen had failed or not .. but they did not use it,,

Undefined "they" - of what relevance is this?

<...there apparatus...> of what relevance is the location of the apparatus?

The direction of this thread is still dependent on too many unknowns. Without an improvement in the quality of the information supplied, expect unsubscription as it is imminent.

What is needed is a concise description of the problem that the forum is being asked to help solve. There is very little meaning in the words so far, apart from the possibility that an invalid test procedure has been completed.

If they monitor the temperature daily they fullfilled the requirements.

Please can we apply a little bit of common sense to the problem.

It is not clear from your side on what you are on about.

Does NACE TM0177 specify what has to be monitored daily?

When the ring cracked on the last day - everything would be in order, right?

What is it you really need to know that you can not get from the procedures?

As per NACE MT0177, it can be understand that the test should be monitored to find out when the specimen will fracture

As I know, there is dial clock should be attached to the test device to indicate if the specimen failed during the 720 hours..

but they did not use it..

So is the test is invalid as it may failed before the last day?

From that description, the test would appear to be invalid.

So when you got there it was over 720 hours? Or did you go there for the end of the test.

It appears that the material being tested did fail DURING 720 hours.

This does not render the test wrong, but the material.

Unless you went there to witness hour 721 everything is in order. But even then the material failed.

Get over it and find a better match for your conditions.

Either the specimen has failed the test, of the test was invalid, or possibly both.

That depends upon the test protocol, which cannot be seen from here.

• The purpose of any test is to establish a high level of confidence under controlled conditions that the equipment will perform as expected when called upon to do so.

If the test is invalid or the specimen failed the test, then the confidence criterion has not been achieved. So go back to the test protocol, read what it says, and do what has been read.

<...We...we...> of what relevance is the use of undefined First Person Plural?

Of what relevance is this to the problem that the forum is being asked to help solve?

In which category are CR4 contributors, and why?

Can they/we/anyone get to the root of what the real problem actually is before we/they/anyone waltzes off the thread/team/contractor in despair? What are the chances? By what date?

The material (your vessel) seems to have failed the test. It should have lasted more than 720 hours and it did not. I was initially thrown off course by the thought it was the material INSIDE the vessel which was being tested, but upon re-reading the OP's question, I realize it was the vessel, presumably a miniature sample of the big one they are planning to build which was being tested.

Is that what you got from this Slack?

I know you want this from Slacky, but initially OP said the "specimen" was cracked.

This means whatever they tested to withstand the conditions that they wanted to apply but did not monitore properly, did not survive the test.

Rethinking this, if you do not monitor properly the conditions under which the specimen fails you probably have a bad test and best is to redo it (given they have another 720 hours time) before they go in decision state.

What a mess!

Mess indeed. One option for the original poster's team is to change the testing organisation to a new one that can produce evidence that the test regime has been followed. Oh, and it should shred the Gantt Chart too - it's meaningless.

<unsubscribes>

We have these point on the current contractor:

- They did not monitor the test probably

- They can not answer these to questions:

1- when was the specimen fractured? As it is required to know how good is the material.. it may failed in 10 days for example..

2- Why was the specimen fractured?

We decide to redo it again with another contractor..