| Date | January/February 2015 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Return to Journal Index | |
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering Journal Article Index
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Greg Alvarado at Inspectioneering Journal
Challenges abounded in 2014 for the process industries, and it does not look like they will let up soon. But then again, that’s life, as they say. After 40 years in the industry the old adages still ring true, “there is nothing new under the sun” and “the only constant is change.”
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalThe future of inspection will be based on predictive and proactive technologies that effectively monitor material properties of structures and systems over their entire service life.
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Matthew Green at Neptune Research, Inc.
Engineered Composite Repair (ECR) systems are moving into mainstream usage at a faster pace than ever. This increased usage and exposure is working to push them into new frontiers and commands a more demanding understanding of their basic functions.
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Pamela Hamblin at Thielsch Engineering, Inc.Avoiding cracking under pressure when managing high-energy piping systems is common subject matter in the power industry. Just as high-energy piping can give way to pressure, stress and fatigue, so can the people in charge of operating them when trying to determine what to inspect, where to inspect, and what to do with those inspection results once they have them.
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Harold Marburger at Dunn Heat ExchangersWhether onsite or offsite, the methods for cleaning shell and tube heat exchangers can vary. Refining and petrochemical operators will agree that high standards must be employed with each method. Choosing the right method can make the difference between smooth operations and unforeseen equipment shutdowns.
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Fred Schenkelberg at FMS Reliability
Reliability engineering tools and concepts can be used to avoid or delay failures, thus increasing product service life. Design or maintenance teams use reliability engineering techniques to identify failures and their causes.
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Layne Tucker at EchoRFID, Jim Anspach at Cardno, Inc., and Steve Slusarenko at ProStar Geocorp, Inc.In the Oil & Gas business we have hundreds of event process chains, each of which bears a cost and contains certain elements of risk. So what can we do to reduce our burden and improve our business? Let’s take a look at the current state of affairs and then have a look at some new technologies that may offer us an opportunity to improve our lot.
-
Partner ContentThe Vanta handheld XRF is Olympus’ first full spectrum PMI analyzer that is IP65 rated and drop tested. The analyzer provides accurate, repeatable material chemistry and alloy grade matching in as little as 1–2 seconds. Operation is simple with an intuitive touch screen and swipe interface. Optional Wi-Fi, with the Olympus Scientific Cloud, provides seamless connectivity for efficient data and fleet management.
-
January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Clint Rupert at Engineered Resin Solutions (ERS)Epoxy products have gone through extensive research and development over the years, and have reached the point that when specified for the correct environment, they should perform exactly as intended.
-
To Test or Not to Test: A Comparison of the Pressure Testing Requirements between ASME B31.3 and ASME Section VIII, Division 1January/February 2015 Inspectioneering JournalBy Hugo Julien, P.E. at GCM Consultants, and Serge Bisson at GCM Consultants
Are you still hitting the welded joints of pressure vessels with a hammer during hydrostatic testing? If yes, then you’re due for a refresher on the pressure testing requirements of ASME Section VIII Division 1 since this requirement was for pressure vessels back in the mid 1940’s. This article will help you by highlighting the main requirements of, and differences between, the hydrostatic test for new pressure vessels fabricated according to ASME Section VIII, Division 1 and the hydrostatic leak test for new piping systems made under ASME B31.3.
