×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Pipe line specification

Pipe line specification

Pipe line specification

(OP)
We have a situation where the stress analysis requires a heavier pipe schedule than the design pressure and temperature of the line would require.  The system is a Class 600 system (flange and valve rating per 16.5 and 16.34).  the application is for a safety valve/rupture disc pipe layout. The pipe, in order to meet the design conditions, would be schedule 40.  the stress analysis requires the pipe to be schedule 160.

How should we handle this with regard to the piping material specification document?

My solution is:
We are using Intergraph's PDS system to model the pipe, and I would just like to make the default schedule in that class to be what is required for stress considerations, with the lower schedule in as an option.  The appropriate notes would be included in the pipe spec to describe where the heavier wall thickness is to be used.

Another alternate solution would be to have multiple class breaks on the P&ID to show that the flanges for the safety valve outlet and rupture disc are the appropriate Class 600 spec, and the piping would be labeled with a separate pipe class that has the required pipe wall based on the higher design conditions of that class.  This way is more cumbersome, but does not leave anything to chance regarding the selection of the proper pipe schedules.

what does anyone else think?
thanks
Mark

RE: Pipe line specification

Can you give a few more details on your system as a change from Sch 40 to Sch 160 pipe is one big step change especially for a Class 600 flange call out.

RE: Pipe line specification

I think the P&ID method should dictate whats on the pipe model.

Good luck,
Latexman

RE: Pipe line specification

I don't see the need for a separate pipe class as they always seem to be based primarily on pressure and temperature.  This situation is not new and doesn't require a new procedure.  Just treat it in the traditional manner. Besides, if you start creating a special class for all the nontypical situations you will encounter, look out... you're going to have an unmanageable number of classes very soon.

I would use the default mode set to pressure and temperature wall thickness in the specification, with the additional note, "unless noted on drawing".  On the drawings, which almost always take precedence over the specification (check contract), you make the note,

   "Class <X>, schedule <xx>, unless noted."

Then make the appropriate notation at the specific locations where the XXH wall is required on the drawing.  

BigInchworm-born in the trenches.
http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

RE: Pipe line specification

Your problem seems to be a bad conclusion to a stress analysis.
First-
At the very least, make that stress engineer justify the change to Sch 160.  And when I say justify I mean really justify it.

Second-
I would get a new Stress Engineer.

RE: Pipe line specification

(OP)
I guess I will have to elaborate on this issue a bit more.

the safety valve in question is at the top of the pressurizer in a nuc plant.  the valve is ASME Class 1 inlet and ASME Class 3 outlet.  the class 1 piping must also meet various LBB criteria (Leak Before Break).  Being at the top of the pressurizer, the seismic response spectra is about as high as it gets in terms of g values for the plant piping.

And yes, BigInch, you are correct, there is an an anchor on the 10" vertical riser off of the safety valve.  Your comment above "Class <X>, schedule <xx>, unless noted." is also good and would be like the solution I had proposed.

The original guestion is concerned with investigating methods of documentation when specifying pipe with heavier wall than design conditions would warrant in the pipe spec document.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources