Comparison of Fiberglass Pipe Joint Methods
Comparison of Fiberglass Pipe Joint Methods
(OP)
Application: Offshore
Service: Firewater System
I have been hearing so much from Fiberglass pipe vendors about their products' superiority over the rest. One manufacturer keep claiming that their butt and wrap joint method is superior compared to the adhesive (taper/taper, taper/straight) methods. I have read many articles but none is conlcusive in saying that one joint is superior compared to the other.
I have limited experience using products from manufacturers who advocate the use of butt and wrap joints.
Can anyone who have used Ameron's Bondtstrand, Fiberbond or Smith Fiberglass share their experience with me? Which one of these has been the least troublesome during hydrostesting and commissioning?
Service: Firewater System
I have been hearing so much from Fiberglass pipe vendors about their products' superiority over the rest. One manufacturer keep claiming that their butt and wrap joint method is superior compared to the adhesive (taper/taper, taper/straight) methods. I have read many articles but none is conlcusive in saying that one joint is superior compared to the other.
I have limited experience using products from manufacturers who advocate the use of butt and wrap joints.
Can anyone who have used Ameron's Bondtstrand, Fiberbond or Smith Fiberglass share their experience with me? Which one of these has been the least troublesome during hydrostesting and commissioning?





RE: Comparison of Fiberglass Pipe Joint Methods
Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/
RE: Comparison of Fiberglass Pipe Joint Methods
Thanks for the input. We have used Amerons' 2416 epoxy and phenolic (jet fire tested) series for our wet and dry systems in the past.
For the Firewater System, a surge analysis was performed taking firewater pump acceleration time into cosideration and the study recommended installation of some air relief valves and the timing before the overboard dump valve should close. The surge loads were then transfered into Caesar II for further analysis and then final "additional" pipe support recommendations were made.
However, things were not that easy. We had many joint failures. The platform was constructed off a remote yard owned by Hyundai. This platform can be considered as a pilot production platform for the operating company that I am working for at present.
We were uncertain whether the failures experienced earlier were due to workmanship or inherent fault in the joint method.
Thanks for clearing my doubts.
With regards to the surge analysis, was a similar study performed at your end? Any information shared will be appreciated.
Thanks.
RE: Comparison of Fiberglass Pipe Joint Methods
Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/