TriplePoint.Threads by TriplePoint.Engineering

Before a process vessel sees its first drop of product, it should pass more than just a visual inspection. Testing is engineering discipline. And yet, I still see confusion between leak tests, service tests, hydrostatic tests, and pneumatic tests. Each serves a different purpose, and choosing the wrong one or skipping it altogether can cost far more than the test itself.  A hydrostatic pressure test in progress Why Test at All? Because once that vessel is in service, failure isn’t theoretical. It’s downtime, contamination, environmental risk, and reputational damage. Testing isn’t a formality; it’s your last chance to catch what drawings and weld logs can’t. Whether you’re commissioning a new reactor, validating a retrofit, or preparing for regulatory inspection, pressure testing is your final line of defense. It verifies that the vessel can withstand operating conditions, contain the process media, and perform safely over time. But not all tests are created equal. 1. Hyd...

In the world of chemical enginee ring and industrial operations, few decisions stir as much debate as this one: Should we buy new process equipment, or source pre-owned? It’s not simply a budget question. It’s a strategic choice that touches on risk, reliability, lead time, stakeholder perception, and long-term legacy. And while the spreadsheets may suggest a clear winner, the reality is often more nuanced. Sometimes new equipment is the right call. Sometimes pre-owned saves the day. But the best decisions are never made in isolation. They’re made with context, clarity, and a healthy dose of engineering judgment. 1. Risk Tolerance and Traceability: What Are You Really Buying Pre-owned equipment can be a smart move. But only if you know what you’re getting. Too often, teams focus on the purchase price and overlook the hidden risks. Was the equipment maintained to spec? Are the manuals, certifications, and service records intact? Has it been exposed to corrosive media, ther...

The world of Capital Expenditure (CapEx) projects, whether building a new petrochemical plant, expanding a mine, or constructing a massive data center, relies on a rigid, phased approach to manage risk and investment. These projects are high, stakes endeavors, often costing billions and spanning years. Their success hinges entirely on one foundational principle: Front, End Loading (FEL). However, the terminology used to define these crucial early phases; FEL 1, FEL 2, FEL 3, pre, FEED, FEED, Basic Engineering, and Detailed Engineering; is notoriously inconsistent. This lack of standardization is more than a semantic annoyance; it is a major source of project failure, leading to scope creep, budget overruns, and severe schedule delays. This detailed guide will decode these phases, explain the dangerous ambiguities, and introduce the most critical rule for all project managers and owners: The Engineering Work Done Test.   Decoding the CapEx Project Phases and AACE Classificat...