The PVELITE software is used to calculate the MAWP
Thread Content
The PVELITE software calculates the MAWP in the following way: after determining the MAWP of a certain component, the software then uses this MAWP minus the hydrostatic head of the liquid column associated with that component to obtain its MAWP. Then, the minimum value of the MAWP among all the components is taken as the MAWP of the entire device. The question is: after calculating the MAWP of a particular component, should this hydrostatic head be subtracted as well?
OP, I’m not quite sure how to understand your question. You mentioned that after calculating the MAWP for each component, the static pressure is subtracted. Compare again and take the smaller value. Using this value as the overall MAWP of the equipment will do. I don’t understand what you mean by “subtracting the static pressure”?
If the bottom MAWP is 10 MPa and the height is 50 m, should 9.5 be used for calculating the MWWP of the equipment for comparison purposes?,?
1. Of course it needs to be subtracted, but the static values of each component are different, so the amount subtracted varies as well.
Why is it necessary to subtract the static head?
The MAWP is determined by calculating it based on the effective thickness of the cylinder and then subtracting the hydrostatic pressure of the liquid column. If this hydrostatic pressure is not deducted, when the pressure inside the equipment reaches the MAWP, the pressure at the bottom of the equipment will exceed the MAWP due to the additional hydrostatic pressure
MAWP stands for maximum allowable working pressure; it represents the upper limit of pressure. If static pressure is added, it will exceed this limit. This is a qualitative statement. If you don’t understand, I’ll explain it in quantitative terms.
For UG99b, the hydrostatic test pressure remains unchanged regardless of the position; no additional head due to the liquid column is required when testing in a horizontal position. It is said that the obtained MAWP already takes into account the hydrostatic head of the liquid column. Now that MAWP has subtracted this hydrostatic head of the liquid column, should the pressure value for the equipment’s hydraulic test be increased by that hydrostatic head?
If you still don’t understand, I’ll have to give you an example; then you’ll get it right away.
It seems that the ASME hydrostatic test does not take the static head into account; why is that?
Where there is water, Jing Yaru is considered; ASME is given even more priority.