Ali,
The statement is self-explanatory – you didn’t understand it. What it means is that liquid phase imposes lesser consequences than gas phase. In molecular theory, gas molecules travel faster, occupy more space, and exert more pressure than liquid molecules. Therefore, gas leaks are more explosive than liquid leaks.
Hope this help.
“Quality is the Bone, Be the Dog Always”
Boniface Obidike
QA/QC Engineer
Speciality Connectors & Pipes
Drilling and Production Systems
GE Oil & Gas Business
Mail: Boniface.Obidike@ge.com
Office: +234(1)4629400
Mobile: +2348163479738
Home: +2348039409934
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of M. Ali Halai
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:35 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:15076] API 580 (Nov 2009) - RBI: Para 14.9(d)
Dear All,
I was going through the contents of RBI and am confused with the interpretation and reasoning for the following statement
"Example of reducing the magnitude of consequence: substitute gas phase technology for liquid phase"
What I interpret from this is that the gas phase has lesser consequence than the liquid phase and its better to work with gas phase.
But why? I collect that gas leaks lead to explosions while liquid leaks are still leaks. For example during pressure tests we take more precautions when using air than with water.
Please pour in some logic to this topic.
Regards,
Muhammad Ali
--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/MaterialsWelding-122787?home=&gid=122787&trk=anet_ug_hm
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
Comments