Interpretation on EN13480-5 NDT

[cardin]

Hello,

I would like to know if someone can shine a light on the following.
EN13480-5 indicates the amount of testing to be performed on piping.
par 8.2.1 gives some guidelines on the amount of examination.
I have a question on part B of this paragraph.

"For piping in material groups 1.1, 1.2, and 8.1, in piping classes I or II, volumetric testing shall be a minimum
of 10 % of circumferential butt and branch welds irrespective of PS and DN, if the piping is > DN 25 and
contains very toxic or extremely flammable fluids;"

Can anyone give input on this. I have piping with material in group 1.1 piping class II with the medium in gas phase. I therefore choose from table 8.2-1 which indicates an NDT extend on the cirumferential welds of 5% (RT/UT) and not from par 8.2.1.b because this paragraph states "fluids" and not gasses. The inspector says it should be 10% NDT as mentioned in the tekst above. What is the opinion of the specialists here and why?

Furthermore what is the defenition of very toxic, this is not mentioned in the standard as far as i can see.

Hoping for some feedback soon.

 

[EdStainless]

Fluid is 'working fluid' it can be any phase of mixture of them.
In your case a gas is the working fluid.

Very toxic, is it listed as a contact or inhalant risk?
Very flammable, will it auto ignite or detonate?

This requires engineering judgement.
And you rarely win disagreements with inspectors (without paying dearly).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

 

[metengr]

Very toxic and extremely flammable are subjective descriptions. Instead it should be treated as toxic or flammable, period. I agree with the Inspector.

 

[cardin]

Thank you for the replies. For me the word fluid means the fluid phase this can mean both fluid and a mixture of them, but not gasses that are fully in gas phase. The gasses in this piping are not allowed to be in fluid phase in this piping system, since it can cause problems if it is. That is why I do not agree with his statement.

Furthermore I think toxicity is open to discussion as Metengr says. Since the EN13480 standard lacks information on how to interpret toxicity (like using CLP) the inspector always wins .

 

[r6155]

EN 13480 9.5.2 Design and manufacturing documentation package
The manufacturer shall compile a design and manufacturing documentation package in such a way that the design
and manufacture of the piping may be assessed against the requirements of this standard and the agreed design.

Is your NDT problem clear in "..the agreed design"?

Regards
r6155

 

[XL83NL]

This is kinda tricky. The problem is the design code EN 13480. I think you should not agree with the inspector upfront, just like that.

Im using the issue 2:2103 version of EN 13480. Youre on the 2002 edition. That edition has been outdated, and I dont see how you could still use it. As it was one of the first releases of EN 13480, it contained a lot of bugs, typo's and errors (although EN 13480 still is a buggy code to work with).

What I would first do is review which edition you should use. For the 2013 edt, table 8.2.1 reads;
Piping in class I or II is subject to 5% random volumetric testing of circ butt welds, and 10% if pneumatic testing @ 1.1 x MAP is applied.

You should make sure youre applying the right code edition. Using an older version would make no sense at all. The classification of gases and liquids is regulated in the PED (the classes you mentioned refer to PED 97/23/EC), and can therefore almost not be under discussion, as the PED is pretty clear in this matter.

To get a resolution with your inspector; review PED 97/23/EC to determine how your substance shall be classified. PED refers to Council Directive 67/548/EEC. At this moment, the CLP is already in working. The new PED 2014/68/EU will be in effect June or July 2016.

Its that simple, just make sure you do your homework upfront.

 

[cardin]

@XL83NL You are correct the inspector pointed to the wrong version (2002). I found out that i had the corrected 13480-5 A1 2013 version, but overlooked it. I knew i had seen what you mentioned before, but looked at the wrong edition of 13480, (stupid mistake from my side) . I pointed him to the fact of the new CLP earlier he wasn't completely aware of the changes i think.