Research and Case Histories

Acoustic emission testing of aboveground petroleum storage tanks: Risk assessment and lessons learned

  1. Martín Sánchez1,2,*,
  2. Nicolas Cardenas1,
  3. Veronica A. Dominguez1

Article first published online: 31 DEC 2011

DOI: 10.1002/prs.11476

Issue

Process Safety Progress

Process Safety Progress

Volume 31, Issue 2, pages 159–164, June 2012

Additional Information

How to Cite

Sánchez, M., Cardenas, N. and Dominguez, V. A. (2012), Acoustic emission testing of aboveground petroleum storage tanks: Risk assessment and lessons learned. Proc. Safety Prog., 31: 159–164. doi: 10.1002/prs.11476

Author Information

  1. 1

    YPF SA, Ruta Prov. 10 e/ 129 y 143 S/N, 1923 Berisso, Argentina

  2. 2

    Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica, Facultad Regional La Plata, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, 60 esq. 124 S/N, 1900 La Plata, Argentina

*YPF SA, Ruta Prov. 10 e/ 129 y 143 S/N, 1923 Berisso, Argentina

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 17 MAY 2012
  2. Article first published online: 31 DEC 2011

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (1298K)

Keywords:

  • acoustic emission;
  • storage tank;
  • in-service inspection;
  • risk assessment

Abstract

This article discusses the in-service inspection experience of aboveground storage tanks (AST) with the acoustic emission method (AE). The risk assessment is made according to the American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication 353. Weighting factors were developed to modify the risk of each AST after the AE floor inspection and conventional inspection for the shell and roof.

Specific procedures are presented through the analysis of elastic waves generated in the tanks by external load. We have considered different noise sources with emphasis in sources caused by leakage of the product to comply with the Argentinian National Regulations in Leak Control. To validate the methodology, we have compared the proposed in-service inspection and its weighting factors with the traditional inspection (e.g., with magnetic flux leakage).

Finally, we have studied the signal interference which is cause from the cathodic protection system. This can lead to an incorrect analysis in the postprocessing. © 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog, 2012

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (1298K)