m (Scipediacontent moved page Draft Content 311769475 to Romano 2004a) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This report details the testing equipment, procedures and results performed under Task 7.2 Sealing Simulated Leaks. In terms of our ability to seal leaks identified in the technical topical report, Analysis of Current Field Data, we were 100% successful. In regards to maintaining seal integrity after pigging operations we achieved varying degrees of success. Internal Corrosion defects proved to be the most resistant to the effects of pigging while External Corrosion proved to be the least resistant. Overall, with limitations, pressure activated sealant technology would be a viable option under the right circumstances. | This report details the testing equipment, procedures and results performed under Task 7.2 Sealing Simulated Leaks. In terms of our ability to seal leaks identified in the technical topical report, Analysis of Current Field Data, we were 100% successful. In regards to maintaining seal integrity after pigging operations we achieved varying degrees of success. Internal Corrosion defects proved to be the most resistant to the effects of pigging while External Corrosion proved to be the least resistant. Overall, with limitations, pressure activated sealant technology would be a viable option under the right circumstances. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| Line 18: | Line 13: | ||
* [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf] | * [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf] | ||
| − | * [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf],[https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/833659 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/833659],[https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943], | + | * [https://core.ac.uk/display/71225151 https://core.ac.uk/display/71225151], |
| + | : [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943/m2/1/high_res_d/833659.pdf], | ||
| + | : [https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/833659 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/833659], | ||
| + | : [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778943], | ||
| + | : [https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/1520967745 https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/1520967745] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:48, 22 January 2021
Abstract
This report details the testing equipment, procedures and results performed under Task 7.2 Sealing Simulated Leaks. In terms of our ability to seal leaks identified in the technical topical report, Analysis of Current Field Data, we were 100% successful. In regards to maintaining seal integrity after pigging operations we achieved varying degrees of success. Internal Corrosion defects proved to be the most resistant to the effects of pigging while External Corrosion proved to be the least resistant. Overall, with limitations, pressure activated sealant technology would be a viable option under the right circumstances.
Original document
The different versions of the original document can be found in:
Document information
Published on 01/01/2004
Volume 2004, 2004
DOI: 10.2172/833659
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA license
Share this document
Keywords
claim authorship
Are you one of the authors of this document?