Project to Asset Handover

A: This would usually trend with temperature and stabilize hot rather than spike immediately. This doesn't explain sensitivity to piping load changes observed during bolt-up. This matches the jump in vibration after connecting piping and explains why cold alignment data looked acceptable. This would show characteristic noise and suction pressure correlation that wasn't observed.

A: This misses the fact that MAWP is already defined at temperature and doesn't need reinterpretation. This inflates test pressure unnecessarily and risks overstressing components. This introduces a non-code safety factor that can damage gaskets and instruments. This aligns with ASME B31.3 intent and avoids plastic deformation while still proving integrity.

A: This shifts responsibility but doesn't address failure physics. This is incorrect since online particle counting is common practice. This prevents infant-mortality bearing and valve damage that can't be undone once wear starts. This misreads the standard and ignores why cleanliness is controlled.

A: This risks operating a protection layer opposite to its intended action. This normalizes undocumented deviation and embeds it into operations. This prevents a latent SIS or process safety failure by forcing resolution and traceability before energy is introduced. This accepts temporary risk and undermines HAZOP close-out.

A: This would show elevated temperature trends and viscosity flags in analysis. This requires specific pitting patterns and grounding issues that weren't present. This aligns with infant-mortality timing and explains why standard oil analysis didn't catch embedded debris. This doesn't fit oil-lubricated bearings without grease reservoirs.

A: This would be overly tight and lead to unnecessary rework. This misapplies unit conversion and allows excessive misalignment. This reflects correct linear scaling and protects bearings during thermal growth. This permits vibration levels that exceed ISO 20816 limits.

A: This assumption ignores fatigue and corrosion mechanisms. This is true but not the driver for acceptance criteria. This prevents growth of defects that could lead to loss of containment during operation. This misstates code intent and practice.

A: This can overstress insulation if the motor isn't rated for the higher voltage. This masks a mismatch and risks thermal damage. This ensures electrical compatibility and avoids latent insulation breakdown. This changes performance without addressing root compatibility.

A: This would have shown functional failures immediately, not intermittent proof test issues. This would trend slowly and affect accuracy rather than pass/fail behavior. This directly undermines the safety function and aligns with poor HAZOP action ownership at handover. This affects PFDavg but doesn't explain test non-responses.