Piping Design and Operations Guideobook - Volume 1 PDF

Volume 1
Piping Design
and Operations
Guidebook
Table of Contents
Facts at Your Fingertips: Fluid Flow _____________________________________________________ 3
Facts at Your Fingertips: Tubing for Peristaltic Dosing Pumps ______________________________ 4
Piping for Process Plants Part 1: The Basics _____________________________________________ 5
Piping Design Part 2: Flanges _________________________________________________________ 11
Piping Design Part 3: Design Elements _________________________________________________ 17
Piping for Process Plants Part 4: Codes and Fabrication __________________________________ 25
Piping Design Part 5: Installation and Cleaning __________________________________________ 33
Piping for Process Plants Part 6: Testing and Verifcation _________________________________ 42
Stress Analysis for Piping Systems Resting on Supports __________________________________ 49
A Method for Quantifying Pipe Vibrations _______________________________________________ 53
New Piping Code for High-Purity Processes ____________________________________________ 57
Piping Design for Hazardous Fluid Service ______________________________________________ 62
Active Management of Pipespool Fabrication ___________________________________________ 69
Reduce Gas Entrainment in Liquid Lines ________________________________________________ 75
Designing Safer Process Plants _______________________________________________________ 78
Designing for a Safe Process __________________________________________________________ 83
Piping Design
and Operations
Guidebook
Volume 1
Department Editor: Kate Torzewski
Fluid Flow
Laminar PiPe fLow
For steady fow in a pipe (whether laminar or
turbulent), a momentum balance on the fuid gives
the shear stress at any distance from the pipe
centerline.
T T
rx w
r
L
r
R

$&
2

(1)
In Equation (1), = P + gz. The volumetric
fowrate Q can be related to the local shear rate
by doing an integration by parts of Equation (2).
Q r dr
rx
R

P G
2
0

(2)
Newtonian fuid. For a Newtonian fuid,
rx
=
rx
, which gives the following volumetric
fowrate, known as the Hagen-Poiseuille equation.
Q
D
L

P
M
4
128
$&

(3)
It can be written in dimensionless form in Equation
(4) with the two terms defned in Equations (5)
and (6).
f N = 16
Re
/

(4)
f
D
LQ
$& P
R
2 5
2
32

(5)
N
Q
D
Re

R
P M
4

(6)
Power law. A fuid that follows the power law
model obeys the relationship
rx
= (
rx
)
n
. This
gives the following equation.
Q
mR
n
n
R
w
n
n
n
=
+
+

1
3 1
3 1

(7)
Equation (7) can be rearranged into the following
dimensionless form.
f = 16 / N Re, pl

(8)
N
Q
m D
n
n
pl
n n
n n
n
Re,

+ ( )
,
,
]
]
]

2
3 1
7 3 2
2 4 3
p
r

(9)
Bingham plastic. In this case, there is a solid-like
plug fow region from the pipe centerline (where
rx
= 0) to the point where
rx
=
0
(that is, at r
= r
0
= R x
0
/
w
). The result is a fow integral
modifed from Equation (2). For a Bingham plas-
tic,
rx
=
0
+
rx
). Using this expression and
the modifed fow integral, the Buckingham-Reiner
Equation (10) is found.
P T
M
T
T
T
T

d
w
w w
Q
R
3
0 0
4
4
1
4
3
1
3

(10)
The equivalent dimensionless form is given by
Equations (11), (12) and (13).
f
N
N
N
N
f N
He He

d
16
1
1
6
1
3
4
3 7
Re d Re d Re

(11)
N
DV
Red
d
R
M

(12)
N
D
He

d
2
0
2
RT
M

(13)
TurbuLenT PiPe fLow
Since most turbulent fows cannot be analyzed
from a purely theoretical perspective, data and
generalized dimensionless correlations are used.
Newtonian fuid. The friction factor for a
Newtonian fuid in turbulent fow is a function of
both N
Re
and the pipe relative roughness, /D,
which can be read off the Moody diagram [5].
The turbulent part of the Moody diagram (for
N
Re
> 4,000) is accurately represented by the
Colebrook equation (14).
1
4
3 7
1 255
f
D
N f
+
,

,
]

]
]
log
.
.
Re
r

(14)
When N
Re
is very large, the friction factor depends
only on /D. This condition is noted with f
T
as the
fully turbulent friction factor in Equation (15).
1
4
3 7 f
D
T
=

log
.

(15)
The Churchill Equation [2] represents the entire
Moody diagram, from laminar, through transition
fow, to fully turbulent fow. It is presented here as
Equations (16), (17), and (18).
f
N
A B
j
(
,
\
,
(
+
+ ( )
,
,
,
]
]
]
]
2
8 1
12
1 5
1
12
Re
.

(16)
A
D
2 457
1
7 0 27
0 9
16
. ln
Re
.
.
E

(17)
B
N
37 530
16
,
Re

(18)
Power law. For a power-law fuid, the friction fac-
tor depends only upon Equation (9) and the fow
index, as represented by Equations (19)(25) [3].
f f
f f
L
T Tr
= +
+
[ ]

( ) 1
8 8
1
8

(19)
f
N
L
pl
16
Re,

(20)
f
n
N
T
pl
n
0 0682
0 5
1
1 87 2 39
.
[ ]
.
Re,
( . . )

(21)
f N
n
Tr pl
n
s
[

1 79 10
5 24
4
0 414 0 757
. e
. ]
Re,
. .

(22)
A

1
1 4
$

(23)
$ N N
pl plc Re, Re,

(24)
The value of N
Re
where transition from laminar to
turbulent fow occurs (N
Re,plc
) is given by Equa-
tion (25).
N n
plc Re,
, ( ) 2 100 875 1

(25)
Bingham plastic. For the Bingham plastic, f
T
is solely
a function of N
Re
and N
He
, as represented by
Equations (26)(29).
f f f
L
m
T
m m

1

(26)
f
N
T
a
d
10
0 193
Re
.

(27)
a
N
He

; =
s

14 7 1 0 146
2 9 10
5
. . e
.

(28)
m
N
1 7
40 000
.
,
Re

(29)
References
1. Darby, R., Take the Mystery Out of Non-Newtonian
Fluids, Chem. Eng., March 2001, pp. 6673.
2. Churchil, S. W., Friction Factor Equation Spans all Fluid-
Flow Regimes, Chem. Eng., November 1997, p. 91.
3. Darby, R., and Chang, H. D., A Generalized Correla-
tion for Friction Loss in Drag-reducing Polymer Solutions,
AIChE J., 30, p. 274, 1984.
4. Darby, R., and Chang, H. D., A Friction Factor Equation
for Bingham Plastics, Slurries and Suspensions for all
Fluid Flow Regimes, Chem. Eng., December 28, 1981,
pp. 5961.
5. Darby, R., Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineers,
Vol. 2, Marcel Dekker, New York, N.Y., 2001.
DEFINITIONS
Newtonian fuid. A fuid is known to be
Newtonian when shear stresses associated with
fow are directly proportional to the shear rate
of the fuid
Power law fuid. A structural fuid has a structure
that forms in the undeformed state, but then
breaks down as shear rate increases. Such a
fuid exhibits power law behavior at intermedi-
ate shear rates
Bingham plastic fuid. A plastic is a material that
exhibits a yield stress, meaning that it behaves
as a solid below the stress level and as a fuid
above the stress level
NOmENclaTurE
a Dimensionless parameter
A Dimensionless parameter
B Dimensionless parameter
D Diameter, m
f Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
f
L
Laminar friction factor, dimensionless
f
T
Fully turbulent friction factor, dimensionless
f
Tr
Transition friction factor, dimensionless
g Gravitational acceleration, m/s
2
L Length of cylinder or pipe, m
m Consistency coefficient, (N)(s)/m
2
n Power law fluid flow index, dimensionless
N
He
Hedstrom number, dimensionless
N
Re
Reynolds Number, dimensionless
N
Re,pl
Power law Reynolds Number, dimensionless
N
Re,plc
Power law Reynolds Number at transition
from laminar to turbulent flow, dimensionless
N
Re

Bingham-plastic Reynolds Number,
dimensionless
P Pressure, Pa
Q Volumetric flowrate, m
3
/s
r Radial position in a pipe or a cylinder, m
R Pipe or cylinder radius, m
V Velocity, m/s
z Vertical elevation above a horizontal refer-
ence plane, m
Dimensionless parameter

rx
Shear rate in tube flow, s
1
Wall roughness, m
Newtonian viscosity, Pas

Bingham Plastic limiting viscosity, Pas

Density, kg/m
3

0
Yield stress, N/m
2

rx
Stress due to force in x direction acting on r
surface, N/m
2

w
Stress exerted by fluid on tube wall, N/m
2
Flow potential, P + gz, Pa
ncrease in flow potential, Pa
Department Editor: Scott Jenkins
P
eristaltic pumps work by compress-
ing a tube against a circular pump
housing with rollers on a rotating
arm. The fuid that is ahead of the roller
gets pushed forward, while new fuid is
drawn into the tube by the vacuum gener-
ated as the tube returns to its relaxed
state. Peristaltic pumps are a type of
positive displacement pump that can be
used in industrial chemical dosing ap-
plications and others, including medical
applications. The tubing used to convey
the material into and out of the pump
mechanism is a critical aspect of pump
performance. The following are consid-
erations for selecting tubing materials for
use with a peristaltic pump.
Advantages and disadvantages
As dosing pumps, peristaltic-based sys-
tems have a number of advantages, along
with some limitations (Table). Reducing the
risk of contamination by pump compo-
nents is a distinct advantage of peristaltic
pumps, but the fow is non-uniform, which
can present problems in certain applica-
tions requiring continuous fow.
Tubing materials
Peristaltic pump tubing is a key compo-
nent, and needs to be selected thought-
fully. Major considerations for tubing
are chemical compatibility, elastomeric
performance and tube life.
Tubing for peristaltic pumps needs to
be constructed of an elastomeric material
in order to maintain the circular cross-
sectional shape, even after millions of
squeeze-cycles inside the pump. Because
of this requirement, many non-elastomeric
polymer materials that are effective
at resisting chemical attack must be
eliminated from consideration in these
applications. Materials such as PTFE
(polytetrafuoroethylene), polyolefns,
PVDF (polyvinylidene fuoride) and so on
should not be considered as material for
pump tubing unless they are used as a
lining of another tubing material.
Popular elastomers for pump tubing
are silicone, PVC (polyvinyl chloride),
EPDM (ethylene propylene diene
monomer)+polypropylene (as in Santo-
prene), polyurethane and Neoprene. Of
these materials, the EPDM+polypropylene
(-prenes) have the best fatigue resis-
tance and a wide range of chemical
compatibility. Silicone is popular with
water-based fuids, such as in the biop-
harma industry, but have limited range of
chemical compatibility in other industries.
To help select tubing materials, many
tubing suppliers provide chemical com-
patibility charts, but it is important for
engineers to use a chart designed specif-
cally for pump tubing rather than for gen-
eral use. Tubing that gets an acceptable
rating for general contact with a given
chemical might not withstand exposure to
the same chemical when subjected to the
physical stresses of peristaltic pumping.
When using compatibility charts, end-
users should check the compatibility of
each component of the solution, rather
than just the main ingredient. Even trace
levels of some acids or solvents can be
enough to destroy pumps with exposure
over longer periods of time.
Chemical resistance decreases as
temperature increases. Chemicals that
have no effect on the tubing material at
room temperature could attack the tubing
at elevated temperatures.
Immersion test
If information on chemical compatibility
cannot be found, or if a plants operating
conditions are signifcantly different from
those used to determine the chemical-re-
sistance ratings, an immersion test can be
performed. In an immersion test, a small
length of tubing is weighed accurately,
and its diameter and length measured.
The tubing is then immersed in a closed
vessel containing the chemical in question
for 48 h. The test piece is then rinsed,
dried, weighed and measured again,
and changes are recorded. The tubing
should also be examined for signs of
softening or embrittlement, which would
indicate chemical attack on the tubing.
Tube squeezing
The amount of squeeze applied to the tub-
ing affects pumping performance and the
tube life more squeezing decreases the
tubing life dramatically, while less squeez-
ing decreases the pumping effciency,
especially in high-pressure pumping.
Thicker-walled tubes generate greater
suction when they return to their original
shape after being squeezed, so they are
generally better for pumping more viscous
fuids. For longer tube life, larger-bore tubes
at lower pumping speeds should be used.
Pressure capabilities
Peristaltic pump applications are typically
limited by the pressure capabilities of the
tubing. Typical pump tubing materials
have working pressure ratings from 10
to 40 psi, with softer materials such as
silicone at the low end and frmer materi-
als at the higher end. Recent material
advances are expanding the pressure
ranges for peristaltic pump applications.
Pressure sources in a fuid-handling
system can vary. Backpressure can be
generated by the fuid passing through a
flter or by the fuid pushing through the
fowmeters or the valves. Backpressure
can also come from the fuid pumping
into a pressurized reaction vessel.
Peristaltic pumps deliver fxed amounts
of fuid with each pass of a roller over
the tube, so the size of the tube has a
direct effect on the amount of fuid deliv-
ered. Variations in tubing dimensions can
mean compromised consistency and re-
peatability, so a tighter tubing-dimension
tolerance is better.
References
1. Hall, J. Process Pump Control. Chem. Eng.,
November 2010, p. 3033.
2. Ebelhack, A. Peristaltic Pumps: Matching the
Tubing to the Fluid. Cole-Parmer Technical Re-
source Library, article 576. September 2009.
Accessed from www.coleparmer.com, March
2012.
3. Cole-Parmer Metering Pump Selection Guide.
Cole-Parmer Technical Resource Library, article
681. April 2008. Accessed from www.colepar-
mer.com, March 2012.
Tubing for
Peristaltic Dosing
Pumps
ADvAnTAges AnD DisADvAnTAges of PerisTAlTic PumPs
Advantages Disadvantages
Dosing accuracy is high, and is
not affected by line pressure and
fuid viscosity
Maintenance can be minimal
due to the absence of valves,
seals, pipework, strainers and
so on
Contamination is virtually elimi-
nated because the only part of
the pump in contact with the
fuid being pumped is the interior
of the tube
Handling slurries, highly viscous,
shear-sensitive and aggressive
fuids is possible
Pump design prevents backfow
and syphoning without valves
Flexible tubing tends to de-
grade with time and requires
periodic replacement
The fow is pulsed, particularly
at low rotational speeds, so
peristaltic pumps are less
suitable where a smooth, con-
sistent fow is required
Not as effective for con-
tinuous process duties, as op-
posed to intermittent duties,
because hose and coolant
replacements are needed
Largest sizes are limited to
1015 gal/min
T
his is the first in a series of ar-
ticles that will cover a wide range
of piping topics. The topics will
cross process-industry lines, per-
taining to, for example, the chemical,
petroleum-refining, pulp-and-paper
and pharmaceutical and other indus-
tries.The main intent of these articles
to address questions and misunder-
standings as they relate to use of pip-
ing on a general basis.
Typical of the topics that will be cov-
ered in this series are the following:
With respect to ASME flange rat-
ings Is the correct terminology
150- and 300-pound flange, or is
it Class 150 and Class 300 flange?
And do the 150 and 300 actually
mean anything, or are they simply
identifiers? Similarly, with respect
to forged fittings, is the terminology
2,000-pound and 3,000-pound, or is
it Class 2000 and Class 3000?
How do you determine which Class
of forged fitting to select for your
specification?
How do you determine and then
assign corrosion allowance for pip-
ing?
How do you select the proper bolts
and gaskets for a service?
How is pipe wall thickness estab-
lished?
What is MAWP?
What is operating and design pres-
sure, and how do they differ? Simi-
larly, what are operating and de-
sign temperature? How do design
pressure and temperature relate to
a PSV set point and leak testing?
For a given process application,
under what Code should the design
be carried out?
What kind of problems might be ex-
pected with sanitary clamp fittings,
and how can they be avoided or al-
leviated?
What is ASME-BPE? And how do
ASME B31.3 and ASME-BPE work
in concert with one another? What
is ASME BPE doing to bring ac-
creditation to the pharmaceutical
industry?
The catch-all terminology for pipe and
tubing is tubular products. This term
includes pipe, tube and their respec-
tive fittings. The term, piping, itself
refers to a system of pipe, fittings,
flanges, valves, bolts, gaskets and
other inline components that make
up an entire system used to convey a
fluid. As for the simple distinction be-
tween pipe and tubing, it is that tub-
ing is thin-walled pipe with a diam-
eter different from that of nominally
comparable pipe.
PiPing and tubing
Piping and tubing can basically be
grouped into three broad classifica-
tions: pipe, pressure tube and mechan-
ical tube. Based on user requirements,
these classifications come in various
types, such as standard pipe, pressure
pipe, line pipe, water well pipe, oil-
country tubular goods, conduit, piles,
nipple pipe and sprinkler pipe.
The two types of main relevance to
the chemical process industries are
standard and pressure pipe. Distin-
guishable only from the standpoint of
use, standard pipe is intended for low-
pressure, non-volatile use, whereas
pressure pipe is intended for use in
higher-integrity services, namely, ser-
vices in which the pipe is required to
convey high-pressure, volatile or non-
volatile liquids and gases, particularly
at sub-zero or elevated temperatures.
Pipe (standard or pressure) is man-
ufactured to a nominal pipe size (NPS)
in which the outside diameter (OD) of
42 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com FeBrUarY 2007
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
Feature Report
Piping for
Process Plants
Part 1: The Basics
Pipe, fittings and related equipment are fundamental
to the operation of chemical process plants.
The series of articles beginning with this one
spells out the details
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 42 1/24/07 2:28:12 PM
a given nominal size remains constant
while any change in wall thickness is
reflected in the inside diameter (ID).
Pipe wall thicknesses are specified by
Schedule (Sch.) Numbers 5, 10, 20, 30,
40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140 and 160. Add
the suffix s when specifying stainless
steel or other alloys. Wall thickness
is also specified by the symbols Std.
(Standard), XS (Extra Strong) and XX
(Double Extra Strong). Pipe of NPS
12 in. and smaller has an OD that is
nominally larger than that specified,
whereas pipe with a NPS 14 in. and
larger has an OD equal to the size
specified.
Steel and alloy tubing is manufac-
tured to an OD equal to that speci-
fied; this means, for example, that
-in. tubing will in fact have a -in.
OD, and that 2-in. tubing will have a
2-in. OD. This practice also pertains to
copper tubing for air conditioning and
refrigeration. Copper tubing for other
purposes has an OD that is always 1/8
in. larger than the diameter specified.
As an example, -in. copper tubing
will have a 5/8-in. OD, and 1-in. tubing
will have a 1 1/8-in. OD.Wall thickness
for tubing is specified in the actual
decimal equivalent of its thickness.
Manufacturing methods
Pipe is manufactured in three basic
forms: cast, welded and seamless.
Tubing is manufactured in two basic
forms: welded and seamless.
Cast Pipe: Cast pipe is available in
four basic types: white iron, malleable
iron, gray iron and ductile iron. White
iron has a high content of carbon in
the carbide form. Carbides give it a
high compressive strength and a hard-
ness that provides added resistance to
wear, but leaves it very brittle. The
absence of graphite bestows a light
colored appearance.
Malleable iron is white cast iron
that has been heat treated for added
ductility. If white cast iron is reheated
in the presence of oxygen-containing
materials such as an iron oxide, and
allowed it to cool very slowly, the free
carbon forms small graphite particles.
This gives malleable iron excellent
machinability and ductility proper-
ties, along with good shock resistant
properties.
Gray iron is the oldest form of cast
iron pipe and is synonymous with the
name, cast iron. It contains carbon
in the form of flake graphite, which
gives it its characteristic gray color.
Gray cast iron has virtually no elastic
or plastic properties, but has excellent
machining and self-lubricating prop-
erties due to the graphite content
Ductile iron is arguably the most
versatile of the cast irons. It has ex-
cellent ductile and machinable prop-
erties while also having high strength
characteristics.
Welded Steel Pipe (and Tubing):
Statements made about pipe in the
this section also pertain to tubing.
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com FeBrUarY 2007 43
IndustrIes and standards
P
ipe is pipe. This is a euphemism quite often used among
piping designers and engineers. Taken at face value, this
is a true statement pipe is certainly pipe. However,
taken in context, the statement means that no matter which pro-
cerss industry you work in when designing piping systems, the
issues are all the same. And in that context, it could not be further
from the truth.
Consider in particular the pharmaceutical industry. Although not
new per se, it is a relative newcomer to the idea of dedicated
design, engineering and construction principles, when compared
to other process industries, such as petroleum refining, bulk chemi-
cals, and pulp and paper industries; indeed, even in comparison
with nuclear power, and with semiconductor manufacture. Here is
a frame of reference, in terms of relevant standard-setting orga-
nizations: the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
was established in 1880; the American Petroleum Institute (API)
was established in 1919; 3-A Standards (for the food and dairy
industry) were first developed in the 1920s; the ASME commit-
tee for BPVC (Boiler Pressure Vessel Code) Section III for nuclear
power was proposed in 1963; the Semiconductor Equipment and
Materials Institute (SEMI) was established in 1973; the Interna-
tional Society of Pharmaceutical Engineers (ISPE) was established
in 1980; and ASME Biopharmaceutical Equipment (BPE) issued its
first standard in 1997. Prior to ASME-BPE, the aforementioned 3-
A piping standards were the common recourse for facilitating the
design of pharmaceutical facilities.
While some of the above standards organizations, and their re-
sulting codes and standards, are specific to a particular industry,
others are more generalized in their use and are utilized across
the various industries. For example, the design and construction of
a large pharmaceutical facility depends upon not only pharma-
ceutical-based standards, codes, guidelines and industry practices
such as those generated by ISPE and ASME-BPE; it also avails
itself of standards created for other industries. In other words,
when designing and constructing a bulk pharmaceutical finishing
facility, or a bulk Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) facility,
the engineers and constructors will be working under some of the
same standards and guidelines as they would when designing and
building in other industries such as a petroleum refinery or bulk
chemical facility.
The point is not that the pharmaceutical industry itself is young;
as already stated, it is not. The point is that the standards and
accepted practices appropriate for state-of-the-art design, en-
gineering and manufacture are. As recently as the past fifteen
or so years, industry practice, including dimensional standards
for high purity fittings, were left to the resources of the phar-
maceutical company owner or their engineering firm (engineer
of record). The same point applied to construction methods and
procedures, including materials of construction. These require-
ments were basically established for each project and were very
dependent upon what the owners personnel and the engineering
firm brought to the table. Industry standards did not exist.
With regard to materials of construction, the ongoing evolution
of technology (science and engineering alike) has raised expec-
tations throughout industry. For instance, out of the research and
development that went into the Hubble Space Telescope came
new methodology and technology to better measure and define
the limits of surface roughness required in material used in hy-
gienic-fluid-service contact piping. This capability is of particular
interest to the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries
(as well as the semiconductor industry), where cross-contamina-
tion at the molecular level cannot be tolerated in many cases.
This requires surfaces to be very cleanable.
Surface roughness used to be expressed as polish numbers (i.e.,
#4 or #7) then grit numbers such as 150, 180 or 240). The prob-
lem with either of these two methods lay in their subjectivity and
their generality. These indicators were not specific enough and
the accept/reject result relied too much on a subjective visual
verification. There will be more on surface finish requirements in
a subsequent installment.
With acute awareness of the ongoing problems currently faced
in the pharmaceutical industry and, for altogether different rea-
sons, the semiconductor industry, various standards organiza-
tions have taken steps to alleviate the consistent problems that
have plagued the industry in the past with, for instasnce, high
purity welding issues, standardization of fittings, and guidelines
for industry practice. This series of articles will discuss some of
the finer points of these issues, and, in some cases, what the
standards organizations, are doing to promote and consolidate
some of the better thinking in this industry and in this field.
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 43 1/24/07 2:28:57 PM
Welded steel pipe is manufactured
by furnace welding or by fusion weld-
ing. Furnace welding is achieved by
heating strip steel, also referred as
skelp, to welding temperature then
forming it into pipe. The continuous
weld, or buttweld, is forged at the time
the strip is formed into pipe. This is a
process generally used to manufacture
low-cost pipe 3 in. OD and below.
Fusion Welded pipe is formed from
skelp that is cold rolled into pipe and
the edges welded together by resis-
tance welding, induction welding or arc
welding. Electric resistance welding
(ERW) can be accomplished by flash
welding, high-frequency or low-fre-
quency resistance welding. A scarfing
tool is used to remove upset material
along the seam of flash-welded pipe.
Flash welding produces a high-
strength steel pipe in NPS 4 in.
through 36 in. Low-frequency resis-
tance welding can be used to manu-
facture pipe through NPS 22 in. High-
frequency resistance welding can be
used to manufacture pipe through
NPS 42 in.
High-frequency induction welding
can be used for high-rate production
of small-NPS (6 in. and less) pipe. This
is a cleaner form of welding in which
scarfing, or the cleaning of upset ma-
terial along the seam, is normally not
required.
Arc welding the longitudinal seam of
production pipe is accomplished with
submerged arc welding (SAW), inert
gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW)
also called tungsten inert gas weld-
ing (TIG), or gas shielded consumable
metal arc welding (MIG).
As will be discussed later in this
series, the type of weld seam used in
the manufacture of pipe is a factor
when calculating the Pressure Design
Thickness (t) of the pipe wall. Some
types of longitudinal pipe seam weld-
ing are not as strong as others, reduc-
ing the overall integrity of the pipe
wall by a percentage factyor given in
ASME B31.3 based on the type of lon-
gitudinal seam weld.
Seamless Steel Pipe and Tubing:
Statements in the following also per-
tain to tubing.
Seamless steel pipe, made using
various extrusion and mandrel mill
methods, is manufactured by first cre-
ating a tube hollow from
a steel billet, which is a
solid steel round. The billet
is heated to its hot metal
forming temperature, then
pierced by a rotary piercer
or by a press piercer to cre-
ate the tube hollow, which
will have a larger diam-
eter and thicker wall than
its final pipe form. The tube hollow is
then hot-worked by the mandrel mill
process, the Mannesmann plug-mill
process, or the Ugine Sejournet extru-
sion process.
Upon completion of these processes,
the pipe is referred to as hot-finished.
If further work is required to achieve
more accuracy in the diameter or
wall thickness or improve its finish,
the pipe can be cold-finished, or cold-
worked. If the pipe is cold-finished, it
will then require heat treating to re-
move pipe-wall stress created during
the working in its cold state.
There are also two forging processes
used in the manufacture of large di-
ameter (10 to 30 inch) pipe with heavy
wall thickness (1.5 to 4 inch). The two
forging methods are called forged and
bored, and hollow forged.
PiPe Fittings
Pipe fittings are manufactured by the
following processes: cast, forged and
wrought.
Cast fittings
Cast fittings are available in cast iron,
malleable iron, ordinary steel, stain-
less steel, brass, bronze, and other
alloy material as follows:
Cast Iron: Cast iron threaded fittings,
covered by ASME B16.4, are available
in Class 125 and Class 250 for sizes
NPS in. through 12 in. Cast iron
flanged fittings, under ASME B16.1,
are available in Class 25, 125 and 250
in sizes NPS 1 in. through 48 in.
Malleable Iron: Malleable iron fit-
tings, under ASME B16.3, are avail-
able in Class 150 and Class 300 in sizes
NPS 1/8 in. though 6 in. for Class 150,
and in. through 3 in. for Class 300.
Be aware that Classifications such as
150 and 300 are not universal through-
out the ASME Standards. They are
instead specific to the Standard with
which they are associated. One thus
cannot, for instance, automatically
transfer the pressure/temperature lim-
its of a flange joint in ASME B16.5 to
that of a fitting in B16.3.
Cast Steel: Cast steel, stainless steel
and alloy steel flanged fittings, under
ASME B16.5, are available in Class
150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1500 & 2500
in sizes in. though 24 in.
Cast Brass: Cast brass, as well as
bronze, threaded fittings, under ASME
B16.15, are available in Class 125 and
250, in sizes NPS 1/8 in. through 4 in.
for Class 125, and 1/4 through 4 in.
for Class 250.
Cast Copper: Cast copper solder
joints, under ASME B16.18, are avail-
able in sizes in. through 6 in.
Forged fittings
Before discussion of forged fittings,
it is illuminating to consider the dif-
ference between forged and wrought
fittings. The term, forging, actually
dates from the times when metal was
worked by hand. A bar of steel would
be placed into a forge and heated until
it reached its plastic state, at which
time the metal would be pulled out
of the forge and hammered into some
desired shape. Today, forging metal
basically means working the metal
by means of hydraulic hammers to
achieve the desired shape.
Wrought iron is corrosion resistant,
has excellent tensile strength and
welds easily, and in its plastic range
is said to be like working taffy candy.
What gives wrought iron these attri-
butes is the iron silicate fibers, or slag
added to the molten iron with a small
percentage of carbon, whereas cast
iron, having a high carbon content, is
more brittle and not as easily worked.
The smelters, where the iron ore
was melted to produce wrought iron,
were called bloomeries. In a bloomery,
the process did not completely melt
the iron ore; rather the semi-finished
Feature Report
$
Y
$
Y
U
NominaI pipe
waII thickness
$
Y
(Min.) = 1.09U but
not Iess
than 0.12 in.
(3.0 mm)
Approx. 0.06 in.
(2.0 mm)
before weIding
Minimum
fIat - 0.75 $
Y
See 7.7.1
Figure 1. Socketweld fittings are available in a
wide range of sizes
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 44 1/24/07 2:31:23 PM
product was a spongy molten mass
called a bloom, a term derived from
the red glow of the molten metal,
which is likewise how the process
gets its name. The slag and impuri-
ties were then mechanically removed
from the molten mass by twisting and
hammering, which is where the term
wrought originates.
Today forged and wrought are al-
most synonymous. ASTM A234, Stan-
dard Specification for Piping Fittings
of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy
Steel for Moderate and High Tem-
perature Service states in Para 4.1
and in Para 5.1 that wrought fittings
made under A234 are actually manu-
factured or fabricated from material
pre-formed by one of the methods
listed previously, which includes forg-
ing. In ASTM A961, Standard Specifi-
cation for Common Requirements for
Steel Flanges, Forged Fittings, Valves
and Parts for Piping Applications, the
definition for the term Forged is, the
product of a substantially compres-
sive hot or cold plastic working op-
eration that consolidates the material
and produces the required shape. The
plastic working must be performed by
a forging machine, such as a hammer,
press, or ring rolling machine, and
must deform the material to produce
a wrought structure throughout the
material cross section.
The difference, therefore, between
forged and wrought fittings is that
forged fittings, simply put, are manu-
factured from bar, which while in its
plastic state is formed into a fitting
with the use of a hammer, press or
rolling machine. Wrought fittings, on
the other hand, are manufactured
from killed steel, forgings, bars, plates
and seamless or fusion welded tubu-
lar products that are shaped by ham-
mering, pressing, piercing, extruding,
upsetting, rolling, bending, fusion
welding, machining, or by a combina-
tion of two or more of these operations.
In simpler terms wrought signifies
worked. There are exceptions in the
manufacture of both, but that is the
general difference.*
Plastic-lined PiPe
I
n the main body of this article, we have touched on just some of
the key points related to metal pipe and fittings, while not consider-
ing plastic lined pipe systems and nonmetallic piping. Nonmetallic
piping merits a discussion on its own, and should not be relegated
to a paragraph or two here. On the other hand, since plastic lined
pipe is steel pipe with a liner, and is so widely used in the process
industries, it is worthwhile to present the relevant basics here.
When first introduced, plastic lined pipe filled a large fluid-han-
dling gap in industry, but brought with it some technical issues.
In particular, when various manufacturers began producing lined
pipe and fittings, industry standards for them did not exist. Conse-
quently, there were no standard fitting dimensions, and the avail-
ability of size and type of fittings would vary from one company to
another (as they still do, to a much lesser degree). Due to the auton-
omous nature of lined pipe manufacturing during its initial stages,
the piping designer for a process plant would have to know early
in the design process which manufacturer he or she were going to
use. Particularly in fitting-makeup situations, in which a 90-deg
elbow might be bolted to a tee, which in turn might br bolted to
another 90-deg elbow it was important to know in advance what
those makeup dimensions were going to be, and thus the identity
of the fitting manufacturer.
While the lack of industry standard dimensions was a design
problem, other operational type problems existed as well. Some of
the fluid services for which these lined pipe systems were specified
for (and still are) would normally be expected to operate under a
positive pressure, but at times would phase into a negative pres-
sure. The liners in the early systems were not necessarily vacuum-
rated, and consequently would collapse at times under the negative
internal pressure, plugging the pipeline.
There was an added problem when gaskets were thrown into
the mix. Gaskets were not normally required unless frequent dis-
mantling was planned; even so, many firms, both engineering and
manufacturers, felt more secure in specifying gaskets at every joint.
When required, the gasket of choice, in many cases, was an en-
velope type gasket made of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) with an
inner core of various filler material, such as EPDM. These gaskets
had a tendency to creep under required bolt-torque pressure at
ambient conditions. From the time at which a system was installed
to the time it was ready to hydrotest, the gaskets would, on many
occasion, creep, or relax to the point of reducing the compressive
bolt load of the joint enough to where it would not stand up to the
hydrotest pressure. Quite often, leaks would become apparent dur-
ing the fill cycle prior to testing.
Other problems that still exist are those of permeation with regard to
PTFE liner material, as well as that of internal and external triboelectric
charge generation and accumulation (static electricity). But, due to the
diligent efforts of the lined pipe and gasket industries, these types of
problems have either been largely eliminated or controlled.
Even so, the designer employing lined pipe should keep the poten-
tial for static-electricity problems in mind. If electrical charge gen-
eration is allowed to continually dissipate to ground, then there is
no charge buildup and no problem. That is what occurs with steel
pipe in contact with a flowing fluid: charge generation has a path to
ground, and does not have an opportunity to build up. With regard
to thermoplastic lined pipe, there are two issues to be considered:
external charge accumulation and internal charge accumulation. Ex-
perience and expertise are needed in order to analyze a particular
situation. A subsequent installment of this series will provide basic
information that will at least allow you to be familiar with the subject,
and help you to understand the issues.
Fitting dimensions for lined pipe have been standardized through
ASTM F1545 in referencing ASME B16.1 (cast iron fittings), B16.5
(steel fittings) and B16.42 (ductile iron fittings). Note 3 under Sub-
Para. 4.2.4 of ASTM F1545 states, Center-to-face dimensions
include the plastic lining, which means that the dimensions given
in the referenced ASME standards are to the bare metal face of the
fittings. However, when lined fittings are manufactured, the metal
casting is modified to accommodate the liner thickness being in-
cluded in that same specified center-to-face dimension.
With regard to vacuum rating, liner specifications have been
greatly improved, but it is prudent to check the vacuum ratings of
available pipe and fittings with each manufacturer under consid-
eration. This rating is likely to vary from manufacturer to manu-
facturer depending on diameter, fitting, liner type, pressure and
temperature. Gasket materials such as PTFE/Silicate composite or
100% expanded PTFE, have been developed to reduce the gasket
creep rate in a gasket material.
Permeation issues with PTFE liners (these issues also arise, to a
lesser extent, with other liner material) have been accommodated
more than resolved with the use of vents in the steel pipe casing, the
application of vent components at the flange joint, and increased
liner thickness.
Standard sizes of plastic lined pipe and fittings range from NPS
1 in. through 12 in. And at least one lined-pipe manufacturer, also
manufactures larger-diameter pipe and fittings: from NPS 14 in.
through 24 in., and when requested can manufacture spools to
144 in. diameter.
*A point concerning the ASTM specifications is
worth noting. In referring to ASTM A961 above,
I am quoting from what ASTM refers to as a
General Requirement Specification. Such a spec-
ification is one that covers requirements typical
for multiple individual Product Specifications. In
this case, the individual Product Specifications
covered by A961 are A105, A181, A182, A360,
A694, A707, A727 and A836.
The reason I point this out is that many de-
signers and engineers are not aware that when
reviewing an A105 or any of the other ASTM
individual Product Specifications you may need
to include the associated General Requirement
Specification in that review. Reference to a Gen-
eral Requirement Specification can be found in
the respective Product Specification.
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 45 1/24/07 2:32:10 PM
Forged steel and alloy steel sock-
etweld (Figure 1) and threaded fit-
tings, under ASME B16.11, are avail-
able in sizes NPS 1/8 in. through 4 in.
Forged socketweld fittings are avail-
able in pressure rating Classes 3000,
6000 and 9000. Forged threaded fit-
tings are available in pressure rating
Classes 2000, 3000 and 6000.
Misapplication of the pressure rat-
ing in these forged socketweld and
threaded fittings is not infrequent;
the person specifying components on
many cases does not fully understand
the relationship between the pressure
Class of these fittings and the pipe
they are to be used with.
In ASME B16.11 is a table that as-
sociates, as a recommendation, fitting
pressure Class with pipe wall thick-
ness, as follows:

Table 1. Correlation of
PiPe Wall thiCkness
& Pressure rating
Pipe wall
thickness.
threaded socket-
weld
80 or XS 2000 3000
160 3000 6000
XXS 6000 9000
The ASME recommendation is
based on matching the I.D. of the
barrel of the fitting with the I.D. of
the pipe. The shoulder of the fitting
(the area of the fitting against which
the end of the pipe butts), whether
socketweld, as shown in Fig. 1, or
threaded, is approximately the same
width as the specified mating pipe
wall thickness, with allowance for
fabrication tolerances. As an exam-
ple, referring to Table 1, if you had a
specified pipe wall thickness of Sch.
160 the matching threaded forged
fitting would be a Class 3000, for
socketweld it would be a Class 6000.
The fitting pressure class is selected
based on the pipe wall thickness.
Referring to Fig. 1, one can readily
see that by not matching the fitting
class to the pipe wall thickness it
will create either a recessed area or
a protruding area the length of the
barrel of the fitting, depending on
which side you error on. For forged
reinforced branch fittings refer to
MSS Standard SP-97 Integrally
Reinforced Forged Branch Outlet
Fittings - Socket Welding, Threaded
and Buttwelding Ends.
Wrought fittings
Wrought steel butt-weld fittings
under ASME B16.9 (standard-radius
1.5D elbows and other fittings) are
available in sizes in. through 48 in.
Wrought steel butt-weld fittings under
B16.28 (short-radius 1D elbows), are
available in sizes in. through 24 in.
There is no pressure/temperature rat-
ing classification for these fittings. In
lieu of fitting pressure classifications,
both B16.9 and B16.28 require that
the fitting material be the same as or
comparable to the pipe material speci-
fication and wall thickness. Under
ASME B16.9, given the same material
composition, the fittings will have the
same allowable pressure/temperature
as the pipe. ASME requires that the
fittings under B16.28, short radius el-
bows, be strength-rated at 80% of the
value calculated for straight seamless
pipe of the same material and wall
thickness.
These fittings can be manufactured
from seamless or welded pipe or tub-
ing, plate or forgings. Laterals, because
of the elongated opening cut from the
run pipe section are strength-rated
at 40% of the strength calculated for
Feature Report
HygienicPiPing
M
ajor characteristics of piping for the pharmaceutical and
semiconductor industries are the requirements for high-
purity, or hygienic, fluid services. These requirements, as
dictated by current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) and
defined and quantified by the International Soc. of Pharmaceutical
Engineers (ISPE) and by ASME Bio Processing Equipment (ASME-
BPE), are stringent with regard to the manufacture, documentation,
fabrication, installation, qualification, validation and quality con-
trol of hygienic piping systems and components.
The hours that the engineer or designer requires in generating,
maintaining and controlling the added documentation required for
hygienic fabrication and installation addds up to 30% to 40% of
the overall cost of fabrication and installation. A subsequent in-
stallment in this series will cover in more detail the specific require-
ments of hygienic fabrication, and, accordingly, where that added
cost comes from.
Hygienic is a term defined in ASME-BPE as: of or pertaining to
equipment and piping systems that by design, materials of con-
struction, and operation provide for the maintenance of cleanliness
so that products produced by these systems will not adversely af-
fect animal or human health.
While system components such as tube, fittings, valves, as well
as the hygienic aspects of the design itself, can apply to the semi-
conductor industry, the term hygienic itself does not; it instead
pertains strictly to the health aspects of a clean and cleanable sys-
tem for pharmaceuticals manufacture. The semiconductor industry
requires a high, or in some cases higher, degree of cleanliness and
cleanability than do the hygienic systems in the pharmaceutical in-
dustry, for altogether different reasons. A term that can more ap-
propriately be interchanged between these two industries is high-
purity; this implies a high degree of cleanliness and cleanability
without being implicitly connected with one industry or the other.
For what is referred to as product contact material, the absence
of surface roughness, minimal dead-legs and an easily cleanable
system are all imperative. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry
had to make a departure from the 3-A standards (created for the
food and dairy industries) of which it had availed itself early on, in
order to develop a set of guidelines and standards that better suit its
industry. Enter ASME-BPE, which has taken on the task of providing
a forum for engineers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, component
and equipment manufacturers, and inspectors in an effort to develop
consensus standards for the industry where none existed before.
Hygienic piping was, up until just recently, referred to as sani-
tary piping. Because this term has been so closely associated with
the plumbing industry and with sanitary drain piping, it is felt by
the pharmaceutical industry that the change in terminology to hy-
gienic is more appropriate.
In both the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries, the
need for crevicefree, drainable systems is a necessity. This trans-
lates into weld joint quality, mechanical joint design requirements,
interior pipe surface roughness limits, system drainability and
dead-leg limitations.
There are two basic types of fitting joints in hygienic piping:
welded and clamp. The welded fittings, unlike standard buttweld
pipe fittings, have an added tangent length to accommodate the
orbital welding machine. The orbital welding machine allows the
welding operator to make consistent high-quality autogenous
welds (welds made without filler metal). Fusion is made between
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 46 1/24/07 2:32:47 PM
straight seamless pipe of the same
material and wall thickness. If a full
strength lateral is required, either the
wall thickness of the lateral itself can
be increased or a reinforcement pad
can be added at the branch to com-
pensate for the loss of material at the
branch opening.
Wrought copper solder joint fittings,
under ASTM B88 and ASME B16.22,
are available in sizes in. through 6
in. These fittings can be brazed as
well as soldered.
The pressure/temperature rating
for copper fittings are based on the
type of solder or brazing material and
the tubing size. The rating will vary
too, depending on whether the fitting
is a standard fitting or a DWV (Drain,
Waste, Vent) fitting, which has a re-
duced pressure rating.
As an example, using alloy Sn50,
50-50 Tin-Lead Solder, at 100F, fit-
tings in. through 1 in. have a pres-
sure rating of 200 psig, and fittings
1 in. through 2 in. have a pressure
rating of 175 psig. DWV fittings 1 in.
through 2 in. have a pressure rating
of 95 psig.
Using alloy HB, which is a Tin-Anti-
mony-Silver-Copper-Nickel (Sn-Sb-Ag-
Cu-Ni) solder, having 0.10% maximum
lead (Pb) content, at 100F, fittings
in. through 1 in. have a pressure rat-
ing of 1,035 psig and fittings 1 in.
through 2 in. have a pressure rating of
805 psig. DWV fittings 1 in. through
2 in. would have a pressure rating of
370 psig.
It can be seen that, within a given
type of fitting, there is a significant
difference in the pressure ratings of
soldered joints, depending on the type
of filler metal composition. Much of
the difference is in the temperature at
which the solder or brazing filler metal
fully melts. This is referred to as its liq-
uidus state. The temperature at which
the filler starts to melt is referred to as
its solidus temperature. The higher the
liquidus temperature, the higher the
pressure rating of the joint.

Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Earl Lamson, senior
Project Manager with Eli Lilly and
Co., for taking time out of a busy
schedule to read through the draft of
this article. He obliged me by review-
ing this article with the same skill, in-
telligence and insight he brings to ev-
erything he does. His comments kept
me concise and on target.
Edited by Nicholas P. Chopey
Recommended Reading
1. Cox, John, Avoid Leakage in Pipe Systems,
Chem. Eng., January 2006, pp. 4043.
2. Sahoo, Trinath, Gaskets: The Weakest Link,
Chem. Eng., June 2005, pp. 3840.
Author
W. M. (Bill) Huitt has been
involved in industrial pip-
ing design, engineering and
construction since 1965. Posi-
tions have included design en-
gineer, piping design instruc-
tor, project engineer, project
supervisor, piping depart-
ment supervisor, engineering
manager and president of W.
M. Huitt Co. a piping con-
sulting firm founded in 1987.
His experience covers both the engineering and
construction fields and crosses industrial lines
to include petroleum refining, chemical, petro-
chemical, pharmaceutical, pulp & paper, nuclear
power, and coal gasification. He has written nu-
merous specifications including engineering and
construction guidelines to ensure that design
and construction comply with code requirements,
Owner expectations and good design practices.
Bill is a member of ISPE (International Society
of Pharmaceutical Engineers), CSI (Construction
Specifications Institute) and ASME (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers). He is a con-
tributor to ASME-BPE and sets on two corporate
specification review boards. He can be reached
at: W. M. Huitt Co., P O Box 31154, St. Louis, MO
63131-0154, (314)966-8919
HygienicPiPing
the parent metals of the two components being
welded by means of tungsten inert gas welding. Pipe
welding will be covered in more detail in an upcom-
ing installment.
The photograph shows an example of an orbital,
or automatic, welding machine mounted on its work-
piece. In this example, the piece happens to be a
90-deg elbow being welded to a cross. One can see
in this example why the additional straight tangent
section of automatic weld fittings is needed that
extra length provides a mounting surface for attach-
ing the automatic welding machine.
As for the clamp connection, it is a mechanical con-
nection whose design originated in the food and dairy industry,
but whose standardization has been under development by ASME-
BPE. Due to a lack of definitive standardization, most companies
that use this type connection require in their specifications that
both the ferrule (the component upon which the clamp fits) and the
clamp itself come from the same manufacturer. This precaution is to
ensure a competent fit.
There are no specific dimensions and tolerances for the clamp
assembly, except for those being developed by ASME-BPE. Cur-
rently, it is possible to take a set of ferrules from one manufacturer,
mate them together with a gasket, attach a clamp from a different
manufacturer and tighten up on the clamp nut. In some cases, one
can literally rotate the clamp by hand about the ferrules, with no
significant force being applied on the joint seal.
The clamp joint is the clamp that applies the force that holds the
ferrules together. The fact that this can occur begs the need for
standardization to a greater degree than what cur-
rently exists. Another issue that currently exists with
the clamp joint is gasket intrusion into the pipe inside
wall, due to inadequate compression control of the
gasket.
Gasket intrusion is a problem in pharmaceutical
service for two reasons:
Depending on the hygienic fluid service and the
gasket material, the gasket protruding into the
fluid stream can break down and slough off into
the fluid flow, contaminating the hygienic fluid
The intrusion of the gasket into pipe on a horizon-
tal line can also cause fluid holdup. This can result
in the loss of residual product, cause potential cross-contamina-
tion of product, and promote microbial growth.
Some manufacturers are attempting to overcome these issues by
improving on the concept of the clamp joint. One company has
developed ferrules whose design provides compression control of
the gasket while also controlling the creep tendency that is inherent
in, arguably, the most prevalent gasket material used in high purity
piping, namely,Teflon.
Another firm manufactures a clamp joint (also provided as a
bolted connection) that does not require a gasket.This type of joint
is currently in use in Europe. While this connection alleviates the
issues that are present with a gasketed joint, added care would
need to be applied in its handling. Any scratch or ding to the
faced part of the sealing surface could compromise its sealing
integrity. Nevertheless this is a connection design worth consider-
ation.
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 47 1/24/07 2:33:20 PM
P
ipe flanges are used to me-
chanically connect pipe sections
to other pipe sections, inline
components, and equipment.
Flanges also allow pipe to be assem-
bled and disassembled without cut-
ting or welding, which eliminates the
need for those two operations when
dismantling is required. In providing
a breakable joint, however, flanges
unfortunately provide a potential leak
path for the process fluid contained in
the pipe. Because of this, the usage of
flanges needs to be minimized where
possible, as with all other joints.
The most prevalent flange stan-
dards to be used in the process in-
dustries are based on those of the
American Soc. of Mechanical Engi-
neers (ASME). These include:
B16.1 Cast Iron Pipe Flanges and
Flanged Fittings
B16.5 - Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fit-
tings (NPS 1/2 through NPS 24,
where NPS is nominal pipe size; see
Part 1 of this series, CE, February,
pp. 4247)
B16.24 Cast Copper Alloy Pipe
Flanges and Flanged Fittings
B16.36 Orifice Flanges
B16.42 Ductile Iron Pipe Flanges
and Flanged Fittings
Large Diameter Steel Flanges (NPS*
26 through NPS 60)
B16.47 Large Diameter steel flanges
(NPS 26 through NPS 60)
Flanges are available with various
contact facings (the flange-to-flange
contact surface) and methods of con-
necting to the pipe itself. The flanges
under B16.5, a standard widely rel-
evant to the process industries, are
available in a variety of styles and
pressure classifications. The differ-
ent styles, or types, are denoted by
the way each connects to the pipe
itself and/or by the type of face. The
types of pipe-to-flange connections
include the following:
Threaded
Socket welding (or socket weld)
Slip-on welding (or slip on)
Lapped (or lap joint)
Welding neck (or weld neck)
Blind
Flange types
Threaded: The threaded flange (Fig-
ure 1), through Class 400, is connected
to threaded pipe in which the pipe
thread conforms to ASME B1.20.1.
For threaded flanges in Class 600 and
higher, the length through the hub of
the flange exceeds the limitations of
ASME B1.20.1. ASME B16.5 requires
that when using threaded flanges in
Class 600 or higher, Schedule 80 or
heavier pipe wall thickness be used,
and that the end of the pipe be reason-
ably close to the mating surface of the
flange. Note that the term reasonably
close is taken, in context, from Annex
A of ASME B16.5; it is not quantified.
In order to achieve this reasonably
close requirement, the flange thread
has to be longer and the diameters of
the smaller threads must be smaller
than that indicated in ASME B1.20.1.
When installing threaded flanges
Class 600 and higher, ASME B16.5
recommends using power equipment
to obtain the proper engagement. Sim-
ply using arm strength with a hand
wrench is not recommended.
The primary benefit of threaded
flanges is in eliminating the need for
welding. In this regard, these flanges
are sometimes used in high-pressure
service in which the operating temper-
ature is ambient. They are not suit-
able where high temperatures, cyclic
conditions or bending stresses can be
potential problems.
Socketweld: The socketweld flange is
made so that the pipe is inserted into
the socket of the flange until it hits
the shoulder of the socket. The pipe is
then backed away from the shoulder
approximately 1/16 in. before being
welded to the flange hub.
56 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com marCh 2007
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
Engineering Practice
Piping Design,
Part 2
Flanges
The engineer or designer must choose among
several flange options. Additional decisions involve
facing and surface finishes, and the appropriate
gaskets, bolts and nuts
*NPS, indicated above, is an acronym for Nomi-
nal Pipe Size.
56-61 CHE 3-07.indd 56 2/27/07 6:45:01 PM
If the pipe were resting against the
shoulder (this is the flat shelf area
depicted in Figure 2 as the differ-
ence between diameters B and B
2
) of
the socket joint during welding, heat
from the weld would expand the pipe
longitudinally into the shoulder of the
socket, forcing the pipe-to-flange weld
area to move. This could cause the
weld to crack.
The socketweld flange was initially
developed for use on small size, high-
pressure piping in which both a back-
side hub weld and an internal shoul-
der weld was made. This provided a
static strength equal to the slip-on
flange (discussed below), with a fa-
tigue strength 1.5 times that of the
slip-on flange.
Because having two welds was
labor intensive, it became the prac-
tice to weld only at the hub of the
flange. This practice relegated the
socketweld flange to be more fre-
quently used for small pipe sizes
(NPS 2 in. and below) in non-high-
pressure, utility type service piping.
The socketweld flange is not ap-
proved above Class 1500.
Slip on: Unlike the socketweld flange,
the slip-on flange (Figure 3) allows the
pipe to be inserted completely through
its hub opening. Two welds are made
to secure the flange to the pipe. One
fillet weld is made at the hub of the
flange, and the second weld is made at
the inside diameter of the flange near
the flange face.
The end of the pipe is offset from
the face of the flange by a distance
equal to the lesser of the pipe wall
thickness or in. plus approximately
1/16 in. This is to allow for enough
room to make the internal
fillet weld without damag-
ing the flange face.
The slip-on flange is a pre-
ferred flange for many appli-
cations because of its initial
lower cost, the reduced need
for cut length accuracy and
the reduction in end prep
time. However, the final in-
stalled cost is probably not
much less than that of a
weld-neck flange.
The strength of a slip-
on flange under internal
pressure is about 40% less
than that of a weld-neck
flange, and the fatigue rate
is about 66% less. The slip-
on flange is not approved
above Class 1500.
Lap joint: The lap-joint
flange (Figure 4) requires a compan-
ion lap joint, or Type A stub end (stub
ends are described below) to complete
the joint. The installer is then able to
rotate the flange. This capability al-
lows for quick bolthole alignment of
the mating flange during installation
without taking the extra precautions
required during prefabrication of a
welded flange.
Their pressure holding ability is
about the same as that of a slip-on
flange. The fatigue life of a lap-joint/
stub-end combination is about 10%
that of a weld-neck flange, with an
initial cost that is a little higher than
that of a weld-neck flange.
The real cost benefit in using a lap-
joint flange assembly is realized when
installing a stainless-steel or other
costly alloy piping system. In many
cases, the designer can elect to use a
stub end specified with the same ma-
terial as the pipe, but use a less costly,
perhaps carbon-steel, lap-joint flange.
This strategy prevents the need of
having to weld a more costly compat-
ible alloy flange to the end of the pipe.
Stub ends are prefabricated or cast
pipe flares that are welded directly to
the pipe. They are available in three
different types (Figure 5): Type A,
(which is the lap-joint stub end), Type
B and Type C.
Type A is forged or cast with an
outside radius where the flare be-
gins. This radius conforms to the
radius on the inside of the lap-joint
flange. The mating side of the flare
has a serrated surface.
Type B is forged or cast without
the radius where the flare begins. It
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com marCh 2007 57
2
$
:
5
3
0
5ISFBEFE
9
#
$
5
3
0
4MJQPO
9
0%
Type A
S
U
O
U
-
Length
0%
Type B
Types B and C
(type C shown)
Types A
S
U
O
U
-
Length
0%
Type C
ANSI
SIip-on
fIange
S
U
O
U
-
ANSI
Iap-joint
fIange
Length
Figure 1. Threaded flanges need not be welded
#
$
5
S
0
Lap joint
9
Figure 3. Slip-on flanges offer an initial lower cost
Figure 4. A lap-joint flange can yield savings in material
costs
Figure 5. Stub-ends serve to complete lap joints
#
2
#
%
$
5
3
0
Socket weId
9
Figure 2. Socketweld flanges have been commonly used
for small pipe sizes
56-61 CHE 3-07.indd 57 2/27/07 6:46:15 PM
is used to accommodate the slip-on
flange or plate flange as a back-up
flange.
Type C is fabricated from pipe using
five suggested methods indicated in
ASME B31.3. The most prevalent
of these is the machine flare. This
method consists of placing a section
of pipe into a flaring machine, flaring
the end of the pipe and then cutting
it to length.
As you can see in the assembly de-
tail of Figure 5, stub-end Types B & C
have no radius at the flare, while Type
A does. This allows Type A to conform
to the lap-joint flange. Due to the ra-
dius of the Type A stub end, a slip-on
flange would have a poor fit, creating
non-uniform loading of the flare face
as well as an undesirable point load at
the radius of the flare.
Weld neck: The reinforcement area
of the weld-neck flange (Figure 6) dis-
tinguishes it from other flanges. This
reinforcement area is formed by the
added metal thickness, which tapers
from the hub of the flange to the weld
end. The bore of the flange needs to be
specified in order to obtain the same
wall thickness at the weld end as the
pipe it will be welded to. This will give
it the same ID bore as the pipe.
The weld-neck flange is the most
versatile flange in the ASME stable
of flanges. Much of its use is for fit-
ting-to-fitting fabrication, in which
the flange can be welded directly to a
fitting, such as an elbow, without the
need for a short piece of pipe, as would
be required with a slip-on flange. It
can be used in low-pressure, non-haz-
ardous fluid services as well as high-
pressure, high-cyclic and hazardous
fluid services.
While the initial cost of the weld-
neck flange may be higher than that
of a slip-on flange, the installed cost
reduces that differential. And for
conditions of possible high thermal
loading, either cryogenic or elevated
temperatures, the weld-neck flange
is essential.
Blind: While the blind flange (Fig-
ure 7) is used to cap off the end of
a pipeline or a future branch con-
nection, it is also used for other pur-
poses. It can be drilled and tapped
for a threaded reducing flange or
machined out for a slip-on reducing
flange. The reduced opening can be
either on-center or eccentric.
Flange pressure ratings
ASME B16.5 flange pressure ratings
have been categorized into material
groupings. These groupings are for-
mulated based on both the material
composition and the process by which
the flange is manufactured.
The available pressure Classifica-
tions under ASME B16.5 are: 150,
300, 400, 600, 900, 1500 and 2500. The
correct terminology for this designa-
tion is Class 150, Class 300, and so on.
The term 150 pound, 300 pound and
so on is a carryover from the old ASA
(American Standards Association)
Classification. ASA is the precursor to
the American National Standards In-
stitute (ANSI).*
Development of ASME B16.5 began
in 1920. In 1927 the American Tenta-
tive Standard B16e was approved.
This eventually became what we
know today as ASME B16.5. Until the
1960s, the pressure classifications,
as addressed earlier, were referred
to as 150 pound, 300 pound, etc. It
was at this point the pressure clas-
sification was changed to the class
designation. These designations have
no direct correlation with pounds of
pressure. Rather, they are a factor in
the pressure rating calculation found
in B16.5. In a subsequent part of this
series, we will discuss how these des-
ignations are factored into the design
of the flange.
Flanges, whether manufactured to
ASME, API (American Petroleum In-
stitute), MSS (Manufacturers Stan-
dardization Soc.), AWWA (American
Water Works Assn.) or any other stan-
dard, are grouped into pressure rat-
ings. In ASME, these pressure ratings
are a sub-group of the various mate-
rial groups designated in B16.5.
Tables 1 and 2 in this article break
out information from the Table 2 se-
ries in ASME B16.5. The Table 2 se-
ries is a series of tables that list the
working pressures of flanges based
on material groupings, temperature
and classification.
There are 34 such tables, segregated
into three material categories: carbon
and low alloy steels, austenitic stain-
less steels, and nickel alloys. These are
further segregated into more defined
material sub-groups. Tables 1 and 2
of this article show Table 2-1.1 from
B16.5, which indicates, in reverse
sequence, Subcategory 1 of Material
group 1 (carbon and low alloy steels).
If you had an ASME B16.5, Class
150, ASTM A105 flange, this is the
table you would use to determine the
working pressure limit of the flange.
To find the working pressure of the
#
$
:
"
9
WeIding neck
3
0
Figure 6. Weld-neck flanges are highly versatile
*ANSI was founded as a committee whose responsibility was to coordinate the development of stan-
dards and to act as a standards traffic cop for the various organizations that develop standards. Its
basic function is not to develop standards, but rather to provide accreditation of those standards
Originating as the American Engineering Standards Committee (AESC) in 1918, ANSI had, over
its first ten years, outgrown its Committee status and in 1928 was reorganized and renamed as the
American Standards Association (ASA). In 1966 the ASA was reorganized again under the name of
the United States of America Standards Institute (USASI). In 1969 ANSI adopted its present name.
While the B16 and B31 Standards have previously carried the ASA and ANSI prefix with its vari-
ous standards titles, ASME has always been the administrative sponsor in the development of those
standards. In the 1970s the prefix designation changed to ANSI/ASME and finally to ASME.
Referring to ANSI B16. or ANSI B31. is no longer correct. Instead, it is correct to refer to a standard
as ANSI/ASME B16. in that it indicates an ANSI-accredited ASME standard. Or one can simply refer
to the standard as ASME B16. or ASME B31.
$
#MJOE
3
0
Figure 7. Blind flanges are commonly used to cap off pipe-
line ends
56-61 CHE 3-07.indd 58 2/27/07 6:47:38 PM
abovementioned flange, enter the col-
umn of this table designated as 150
then move down the column to the op-
erating temperature. For intermedi-
ate temperatures, linear interpolation
is permitted.
The previous paragraph refers to
operating temperature when one
is looking to determine the working
pressure of a flange. Operating and
working are synonymous. The indi-
cation of a working pressure and tem-
perature of a fluid service is the same
as indicating the operating pressure
and temperature.
There exists some confusion in this
area. That confusion becomes appar-
ent when the engineer is determining
design pressure and temperature and
applying them to the flange rating. On
the surface, there appears to be a con-
flict in rating a flange for design con-
ditions when Table 2 only indicates
working pressures.
Operating and design pressures
and temperatures will be explained
in more detail in a subsequent article
in this series. For now, be aware that
every service should have an operat-
ing pressure/temperature as well as
a design pressure/temperature. A de-
sign condition is the maximum coinci-
dental pressure and temperature con-
dition that the system is expected or
allowed to see. This then becomes the
condition to which you should design
for, and to which the leak test is based
on, not the operating condition.
Table 2, as it indicates, represents
the working or operating pressures
of the flange at an indicated tempera-
ture for a specific class. The maximum
hydrostatic leak-test pressure for a
Class 150 flange in Table 2-1.1 is 1.5
times the rated working pressure at
100F, or 285 x 1.5 = 427.5 rounded off
to the next higher 25 psi, or 450 psig.
We can extrapolate that piece of
information to say that since hydro-
static leak-test pressure is based on
1.5 times design pressure, the work-
ing pressure limit given in the Table 2
matrix ostensibly becomes the design
pressure limit.
When one is working with ASME
B31.3 Category D fluid services, and
initial service leak testing is per-
formed, the working pressure limit
then remains the working pressure
limit because testing is performed
at operating or working pressures.
However, there are caveats that ad-
dress the fact that not all Category
D fluid services (see next paragraph)
should waive the hydrostatic leak
test for an initial service leak test.
These conditions, such as
steam service, will also be
discussed in a subsequent
article.
Category D fluid services
are those fluid services that
are nonflammable, non-
toxic and not damaging to
human tissue. Additionally,
Category D fluids do not
exceed 150 psig and 366 F.
In initial service leak
testing, the test fluid is the
service fluid. Leak test-
ing occurs during or prior
to initial operation of the
system. As the service fluid
is introduced to the piping
system and brought to op-
erating pressure, in pres-
sure increments, all joints
are observed for possible
leaks. If no leaks are de-
tected, the pipeline simply
remains in service.
Other ASME B31.3 fluid
services may be expected to operate at
one set of conditions, but are designed
for another set. For those systems,
which might include periodic steam-
out (cleaning, sterilization, sanitiza-
tion) or passivation, you therefore
want to base your flange-rating selec-
tion on those more-extreme, periodic
design conditions. To clarify periodic
in this context, the sanitization pro-
cess may be done as frequently as once
per week and last for up to one-and-a-
half shifts in duration.
Facings and surface finishes
Standard flange-facing designations
(Figure 8) are as follows: flat face,
raised face, ring joint, tongue and
groove, large and small male and fe-
male, small male and female on end of
pipe, and large and small tongue and
groove. The height of the raised face
for Class 150 and 300 flanges is 0.06
in. The height of the raised face for
Class 400 and above is 0.25 in.
Industry wide, not discounting the
lap-joint flange and stub-end com-
bination, the two most widely used
flange facings are the flat face and
the raised face.
The surface finish of standard
raised-face and flat-face flanges has a
serrated concentric or serrated spiral
Figure 8. Flange facings are available in several varieties
56-61 CHE 3-07.indd 59 2/28/07 9:58:07 AM
surface finish with an average rough-
ness of 125 10
6
in. to 250 10
6

in. The cutting tool used for the ser-
rations will have a 0.06 in. or larger
radius, and there should be from 45 to
55 grooves per inch.
Bolts, nuts and gaskets
Sealing of the flange joint and the
hygienic-clamp joint (as discussed
last month in Part 1) is paramount
in providing integrity to the overall
piping system. This is achieved with
the use of bolts, nuts and gaskets.
Making the right selection for the
application can mean the difference
between a joint with integrity and
one without.
ASME B16.5 provides a list of ap-
propriate bolting material for ASME
flanges. The bolting material is
grouped into three strength catego-
ries high, intermediate and low
that are based on the minimum
yield strength of the specified bolt
material.
The high-strength category in-
cludes bolt material with a minimum
yield strength of not less than 105
kilopounds per square inch (ksi). The
intermediate-strength category in-
yield strength of between 30 ksi and
105 ksi. The low-strength category in-
yield strength no greater than 30 ksi.
As defined in ASME B16.5, the
high-strength bolting materials . . . .
may be used with all listed materials
and all gaskets. The intermediate-
strength bolting materials . . . . may
be used with all listed materials and
all gaskets, provided it has been veri-
fied that a sealed joint can be main-
tained under rated working pressure
and temperature. The low-strength
bolting materials . . . . may be used
with all listed materials but are lim-
ited to Class 150 and Class 300 joints,
and can only be used with selected
gaskets as defined in ASME B16.5.
ASME B31.3 further clarifies in
Paragraph 309.2.1, Bolting having
not more than 30 ksi specified mini-
mum yield strength shall not be used
for flanged joints rated ASME B16.5
Class 400 and higher, nor for flanged
joints using metallic gaskets, unless
calculations have been made showing
adequate strength to maintain joint
tightness. B31.3 additionally states in
Paragraph 309.2.3, If either flange
is to the ASME B16.1 (cast iron), ASME
B16.24 (cast copper alloy), MSS SP-
42 (valves with flanged and buttweld
ends), or MSS SP-51 (cast flanges and
fittings) specifications, the bolting ma-
terial shall be no stronger than low
yield strength bolting unless: (a) both
flanges have flat faces and a full face
gasket is used: or, (b) sequence and
torque limits for bolt-up are specified,
with consideration of sustained loads,
displacement strains, and occasional
loads (see Paragraphs. 302.3.5 and
302.3.6), and strength of the flanges.
In specifying flange bolts, as well as
the gasket, it is necessary to consider
not only design pressure and temper-
ature but also fluid service compat-
ibility, the critical nature (if any) of
the fluid service, and environmental
conditions, all in conjunction with one
another. To aid in understanding the
relationships among these criteria,
some clarification follows:
The design pressure and tempera-
ture jointly determine the pressure
class of a flange set. That in turn,
along with flange size, will deter-
mine the number and size of the
flange bolts. The flange class will
also determine the compressibility
range of the gasket material
Fluid service compatibility will help
determine the most suitable gasket
material.
The critical nature of the fluid will
determine the degree of integrity re-
quired in the joint. This requirement
will help determine bolt strength
and material as well as gasket type
Environmental conditions (corrosive
atmosphere, wash-down chemicals,
other) will also help determine the
best bolt material
In short, all of the variables that come
together in making up a flange-joint
specification have to do so in a com-
plementary fashion. Simply selecting
a gasket based on material selection
and not taking into account the pres-
sure rating requirement could provide
a gasket that would get crushed under
necessary torque requirements rather
than withstand the bolt load and cre-
ate a seal.
Selecting a low-strength bolt to be
used with a Class 600 flange joint with
proper gasketing will require the bolts
to be torqued beyond their yield point,
or, at the very least, beyond their elas-
tic range. To explain this briefly, bolts
act as springs when they are installed
and loaded properly. In order for the
flange joint to maintain a gasket seal,
it requires dynamic loading. Dynamic
loading of flange bolts allows expan-
sion and contraction movement in and
Table 1. Pressure TemPeraTure raTings
for grouPs 1.1 Through 3.16 maTerials
raTings for grouP 1.1 maTerials
nominal
designation
forgings Castings Plates
C-Si A 105 (1) A 216 Gr. WCB (1) A 515 Gr. 70 (1)
C-Mn-Si A 350 Gr. LF2 (1) A 516 Gr. 70 (1)(2)
A 537 Cl. 1 (3)
Notes: (1) Upon prolonged exposure to temperature above 800F, the carbide phase of steel may
be converted to graphite. Permissible, but not recommended for prolonged use above 800F.
(2) Not to be used over 850F (3) Not to be used over 700F
Table 2. Working Pressures by Classes, Psig
Temp., F Class
150 300 400 600 900 1,500 2,500
-20 to 100 285 740 990 1,480 2,220 3,705 6,170
200 260 675 900 1,350 2,025 3,375 5,625
300 230 655 875 1,315 1,970 3,280 5,470
400 200 635 845 1,270 1,900 3,170 5,280
500 170 600 800 1,200 1,795 2,995 4,990
600 140 550 730 1,095 1,640 2,735 4,560
650 125 535 715 1,075 1,610 2,685 4,475
700 110 535 710 1,065 1,600 2,665 4,440
750 95 505 670 1,010 1,510 2,520 4,200
800 80 410 550 825 1,235 2,060 3,430
850 65 270 355 535 805 1,340 2,230
900 50 170 230 345 515 860 1,430
950 35 105 140 205 310 515 860
1,000 20 50 70 105 155 260 430
56-61 CHE 3-07.indd 60 2/27/07 6:50:11 PM
around the joint while maintaining a
seal. This is achieved by applying suf-
ficient stress to the bolt to take it into
the materials elastic range.
If the bolts are not stressed suffi-
ciently into their elastic range, any re-
laxation in the gasket could reduce the
sealing ability of the joint. To the other
extreme, if the bolts were stressed be-
yond their elastic range and into the
plastic range of their material of con-
struction the same issue would apply;
they would lose their dynamic load on
the gasket. In that case, if they did not
shear, they would take a set. Any re-
laxation in the gasket will then result
in the reduction or elimination of the
joints sealing ability.
The nut should be selected to com-
plement the bolt. The bolt material
specification will steer you, either
partially or completely, into the proper
nut selection.
ASTM A307, a material standard
for bolts in the low-strength category,
states that the proper grade for bolts
to be used for pipe flange applications
is Grade B. The standard goes fur-
ther to state that when used for pipe
flanges, Grade B bolts require a Heavy
Hex Grade A nut under ASTM A563.
In writing a pipe specification that
included the A307 bolt, you would not
need to specify the nut, since it is al-
ready defined in A307.
However, ASTM A193, alloy and
stainless-steel bolts, goes only so far
when it states that nuts shall conform
to ASTM A194 there are several
grades of A194 nuts to select among.
This is an example of where the match-
ing nut is not always explicitly called
out in the ASTM standard. Because
the ASTM standards are inconsistent
in that regard, the specification writer
must make sure that the nut is cov-
ered in a specification.
In summary, all four components
flanges, bolts, nuts and gaskets
have to be selected in conjunction
with one another in order for the joint
assembly to perform in a way that it is
expected to for a given application.
Edited by Nicholas P. Chopey
Author
M. Huitt Co. a piping con-
sulting firm founded in 1987.
Owner expectations and good design practices.
tributor to ASME-BPE and sets on two corporate
specification review boards. He can be reached
at: W. M. Huitt Co., P O Box 31154, St. Louis, MO
63131-0154, (314)966-8919. His email address is
wmhuitt@aol.com
MANUFACTURERS OF PROCESS MACHINERY
CHEMICALS & PETROCHEMICALS FOOD PROCESSING PULP & PAPER
PHARMACEUTICALS PLASTICS AND MORE
128 Market Street Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033
Phone: 908-259-9292 Fax: 908-259-9280
www.gocrushers.com
ATLANTIC COAST CRUSHERS, INC
The Flow-Sentry Crusher is a
versatile heavy-duty, in-line
machine designed to reduce
oversized lumps as they travel through
liquid, slurry or powder piping systems.
The patented design works well in pressure,
gravity or pneumatic applications.
Visit us at www.gocrushers.com or contact an ACC representative for additional
information on our complete line of standard crushers or to discuss a custom
design suitable for your companys unique requirements.
Circle 35 on p. 78 or go to adlinks.che.com/6893-35
XXXDIFDPN
I|e we|:||e ler C|| |rele::|eaa|:
www.t|e.tem eller:.
M
/tte:: |e ||e me:| retea| |::ce el $&
M
$& /rt||e: eer ar||t|e jc|||:|ei
|a $& lrem ||e ja:| IJ ear:
M
$& New:|e||er:
M
$& We||aar:
M
|aic:|r eea| |alerma||ea
M
/ai mct| merel
'PSNPSFJOGPSNBUJPO tea|at| !e|a '|ratta
a| ZIZ-ZI-+SJ, j:|ratta@t|e.tem
XXXDIFDPN
98I8 CE Web House Ad.indd I S/?4/0 II.0.IS AM

56-61 CHE 3-07.indd 61 2/27/07 6:51:05 PM
P
iping design is the job of con-
figuring the physical aspects
of pipe and components in an
effort to conform with piping
and instrumentation diagrams
(P&IDs), fluid-service requirements,
associated material specifications,
equipment-data sheets, and current
good manufacturing practices (GMP)
while meeting owner expectations. All
of this must be accomplished within
a pre-determined, three-dimensional
assigned space, while coordinating the
activity with that of the architecture,
structural steel, HVAC (heating, ven-
tilation air conditioning), electrical,
video, data-and-security conduit and
trays, and operational requirements.
Pulling together and coordinating
these activities to achieve such a com-
pilation of design requires a system-
atic methodology, planning, technical
ability, interdisciplinary coordination,
foresight, and above all, experience.
This third part in a series on piping
design* discusses a number of key
elements, including how to prepare
specifications and guidelines, and
some insights on flanges, surface fin-
ish, design temperature and pressure,
and charge accumulation. Although
computer-aided design (CAD) has be-
come an integral part of piping design,
it will not be discussed in this article.
SpecS and guidelineS
One of the first activities the piping
engineer will be involved with is devel-
opment of piping specifications (specs)
and guidelines on design and construc-
tion. Piping specifications, as an over-
view, should provide essential material
detail for design, procurement and fab-
rication. Guidelines, both design and
construction, should provide sufficient
definition in a well organized manner
to allow the designer and constructor
the insight and direction they need
in order to provide a facility that will
meet the expectation of the owner with
minimal in-process direction from the
owner or construction manager.
Piping specifications
A piping specification is the document
that will describe the physical char-
acteristics and specific material at-
tributes of pipe, fittings and manual
valves necessary to the needs of both
design and procurement personnel.
These documents also become contrac-
tual to the project and the contractors
that work under them. Designers will
require a sufficient degree of informa-
tion in a specification that will allow
for determining the service limitations
of the specification and what fluid ser-
vices the specifications material is
compatible with. For example, a proj-
ect may have, among other fluid ser-
vices, sulfuric acid and chilled water.
The economic and technical feasibility
of the material selection for chilled
water service would not be technically
feasible for sulfuric acid. Inversely, the
economic and technical material selec-
tion for sulfuric acid service would not
be economically feasible for chilled
water service.
Procurement personnel, too, will
need detailed specifications to limit
the assumptions they will have to
make or the questions they will have
to ask in preparing purchase orders.
The piping specification should make
clear exactly what the material of
construction is for each component,
and to what standard that component
is manufactured. Also included in
the component description should be
pressure rating, end-connection type
and surface finish where required.
There are a few rather common mis-
takes that companies make in devel-
oping or maintaining specifications:
1. The specification itself is either not
definitive enough or too definitive; 2.
The specifications are not updated in
a timely manner; and 3. The specifica-
tions are too broad in their content.
Lets consider each of these points in
more detail.
Point 1. When defining pipe and com-
ponents in a specification, you should
provide enough information to identify
each component without hamstring-
ing yourself or procurement person-
nel in the process. In other words, do
not get so specific or proprietary with
the specification that only one manu-
facturer is qualified to provide the
component (unless that is the actual
intent). With standard pipe and fit-
tings, its difficult to provide too much
information. However, with valves and
other inline equipment, overspecifica-
tion can happen quite easily.
A common practice is to write a
Feature Report
50 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com July 2007
engineeering practice
Piping Design, Part 3
Design Elements
Design requires a systematic methodology, planning,
technical ability, interdisciplinary coordination,
foresight and, above all, experience
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
*Part 1: The Basics, CE February, pp. 4247;
Part 2: Flanges, CE March, pp. 5661
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 50 6/28/07 8:29:11 PM
specification for a generic type valve,
one that can be bid on by multiple
potential suppliers, by using the de-
scription of one particular valve as a
template. What happens is that pro-
prietary manufacturer trade names,
such as some of the trim materials, are
carried over to the generic valve spec.
When the procurement person for the
mechanical contractor, or whoever is
buying the valves for the project, gets
ready to purchase this valve, the only
manufacturer that can supply it with
the specified proprietary trim is the
one from which the spec was copied.
You would think that doing this
would eliminate multiple bids for the
valve based on the unintentional pro-
prietary requirements in the spec. In-
stead, it creates confusion and propa-
gates questions. The valve bidders,
other than the one the spec was based
on, will bid the valve with an excep-
tion to the proprietary material, or
they will contact the purchasing agent
for clarification. Since the purchas-
ing agent wont have the answer, the
question or clarification goes back to
the engineer and/or the owner. The
time necessary for responding to these
types of issues is better spent on more
pressing matters.
When developing a spec, be specific,
but try not to include proprietary data
unless you intend to. For example,
when specifying Viton you are speci-
fying a generic DuPont product ge-
neric in that there are several differ-
ent types of Viton, such as Viton A,
Viton B, Viton GF, Viton GFLT and so
on. Each of these has a specific formu-
lation, which gives it different fluid-
service compatibility and pressure
and temperature ranges.
Viton is a type of fluorocarbon. Fluo-
rocarbons are designated FKM under
ASTM D-1418, so when specifying
Viton you are identifying a specific
product from a specific manufacturer
almost. By almost, what is meant
is that, if you write the spec as Viton
you would most likely get the original
formulation, which is Viton A. The
fluid service may be more suited for
an FKM with polytetrafluoroethylene
in it (Viton GF) or an FKM suitable
for colder temperatures may be a bet-
ter choice (Viton GFLT). Be specific for
those who have to use the specs for de-
sign and purchase of the material.
If, in developing a specification, you
wish to establish minimum require-
ments for a component or a material,
it is certainly acceptable to identify a
specific proprietary item as a bench-
mark. In doing this and well stay
with the fluorocarbon gasket or seal
example you could identify Viton
GF or equal, which would indicate
that a comparable material from one
of the other fluorocarbon manufactur-
ers would be acceptable so long as the
fluid service compatibility and pres-
sure/temperature ranges were equal to
or greater than the Viton GF material.
Point 2. All too often after a specifica-
tion is developed it will reside in the
companys database without being pe-
riodically reviewed and updated. How-
ever, industry standards change, part
numbers change, manufacturers are
bought and sold, manufacturers im-
prove their products, and so on. All of
these things constitute the need and
necessity to review and revise specifi-
cations on a timely basis.
A company that houses its own set
of specifications should review them
at least every two years. This timing
works out for a couple reasons. Firstly,
industry standards, on average, pub-
lish every two years, and secondly,
capital projects, from design through
close-out, will arguably have an aver-
age duration of two years. Lessons-
learned from projects can then be
considered for adoption into company
specs, prompting a new revision.
Point 3. Specs that are too broad in
their content refers to an attempt at
making the specs all-inclusive. A pip-
ing specification should contain only
those components and information
that would typically be used from job
to job. That would include the follow-
ing (as an example):
1. Pressure and temperature limit of
the specification
2. Limiting factor for pressure and
temperature
3. Pipe material
4. Fitting type, rating and material
5. Flange type, rating and material
6. Gasket type, rating and material
7. Bolt and nut type and material
8. Manual valves, grouped by type
9. Notes
10. Branch chart matrix with corro-
sion allowance
These ten line items provide the pri-
mary component information and
notations required for a typical pip-
ing system. Some specifications are
written to include components, such
as steam traps, sight glasses, three- or
four-way valves, strainers, and other
miscellaneous items. These miscella-
neous items are better referred to as
specialty items (or some other simi-
larly descriptive name) and are sized
and specified for each particular appli-
cation. This does not make them good
candidates for inclusion into a basic
pipe specification.
To explain the above we can use,
as an example, a carbon-steel piping
system that is specified to be used in
a 150-psig steam service. The pipe,
flanges, fittings, bolts, gaskets and
valves can all be used at any point in
the system as specified. The specifica-
tion for a steam trap, however, will
vary depending on its intended appli-
cation. And depending on its applica-
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com July 2007 51
Piping Design, Part 3
Design Elements
Figure 1. Shown here is a magnified image (2,000x) of a bio-
film [1]
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
I
i
t
y
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1 0 1 2 3
Surface roughness, Ra (m)
4 5 6 7
ProbabiIity of Attachment vs Surface Roughness
Figure 2. The proper surface roughness can maximize the
cleaning of biofilm from a pipe [1]
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 51 6/28/07 8:29:49 PM
tion, the load requirements for each
trap may vary. For example, a steam-
trap application at a drip leg will have
a light steady load, whereas a steam-
trap application at a shell-and-tube
heat exchanger may have a heavier
modulating load. And that doesnt take
into account the need for the different
types of traps, including F&T (float-
and-thermostatic), inverted bucket,
and thermodynamic.
You could, depending on the size of
the project, have multiple variations
of the four basic types of steam traps
with anywhere from 30 to 300 or more
traps in multiple sizes and various
load requirements. I think you can see
why this type of requirement needs to
be its own specification and not a part
of the piping specification.
A piping specification should be con-
cise, definitive and repeatable. Adding
specialty type items to the specifica-
tion makes it convoluted and difficult
to control and interpret. Users of these
specifications are designers, bidders,
procurement personnel, fabricators,
receipt verification clerks, validation
and maintenance personnel.
With this in mind, you can better
understand, or at least value the fact,
that these documents have to be in-
terpreted and used by a wide range of
personnel. These personnel are look-
ing for particular information, written
in a concise manner that will allow
them to design and order or verify
components within that specification.
Inclusion of the specialty type items
will, at the very least, complicate and
exacerbate the process.
Design/construction guidelines
In conjunction with the piping speci-
fications, the design and construction
guidelines should convey to the de-
signer and constructor point-by-point
requirements as to how a facility is
to be designed and constructed. The
guidelines should not be a rhetorical
essay, but instead should follow an in-
dustry standard format, preferably a
CSI (Construction Specifications In-
stitute) format.
Look at it this way: the material
specifications tell the designer and
constructor what material to use;
the guidelines should tell them how
to assimilate and use the material
specifications in applying them to
good design practice. Without these
guidelines as part of any bid pack-
age or request-for-proposal package,
the owner is essentially leaving it up
to the engineer and/or constructor
to bring their own set of guidelines
to the table. And this may or may not
be a good thing. Leaving the full facil-
itys delivery to the engineer and con-
structor depends a great deal on the
qualifications of the engineer and the
constructor, and whether or not consis-
tency from plant to plant and project
to project is an issue.
If the owner approaches a proj-
ect with expectations as to how they
would like their plant or facility de-
signed and built, then some prepara-
tion, on the owners part, is in order.
Preparation should include, not only
material specifications as described
earlier, but also the guidelines and
narratives (yes, narratives) necessary
to define the design and construction
requirements.
I mention the use of narratives here
because a narrative helps facilitate
the understanding and conveys the
magnitude of the, in most cases, reams
of specifications and guidelines neces-
sary to build an industrial facility of
any appreciable size.
In general, a narrative should ex-
plain in simple, straight-forward lan-
guage, for each discipline: the number-
ing scheme used for the specifications
and guidelines; association between
the material specifications and the
guidelines; an explanation as to why
the project is governed by a particular
code or codes; and a brief description
of expectation.
The narrative allows you to be more
explanatory and descriptive than a
formal point-by-point specification. It
gives the bidder/engineer a Readers
Digest version of the stacks of speci-
fications and guidelines they are ex-
pected to read through and assimilate
within a matter of a few weeks.
How piping specifications are deliv-
ered to a project can have a significant
impact on the project itself. There are,
generally speaking, three scenarios in
which project specifications and guide-
lines are delivered to a project. In Sce-
nario 1, the owner, or customer, has
developed a complete arsenal of speci-
fications and guidelines. In the older,
more established petroleum-refining
and chemical companies you will see
entire departments whose mission is
to create, maintain and refine all of
the specifications and guidelines nec-
essary to execute a project. When a
project is approved to go out for bid
to an engineer, the necessary specifi-
cations and guidelines along with the
requisite drawings are assembled,
packaged and provided to the engineer
as bid documents, and beyond that as
working documents in the design, en-
gineering and construction efforts.
In Scenario 2, the owner, or cus-
tomer, has some specifications and
guidelines that have possibly not been
updated for several years. These are
provided to the engineer with the un-
derstanding and stipulation that any
errors or omissions in the documents
should be addressed and corrected
by the engineer. These, too, would be
used in the bid process as well as on
the project itself.
In Scenario 3, the owner, or cus-
tomer, brings no specifications or
guidelines to the project table. Speci-
fication development becomes part of
the overall project engineering effort.
Scenarios 1 and 3 are at opposite
ends of the spectrum, but afford the
best situation for both the owner and
engineer/constructor. By providing
the engineer and constructor, as in
Scenario 1, with a full set of current
specifications and well articulated
guidelines, the assumption is made
that both the engineer and construc-
tor are qualified for the level of work
required, and can very effectively ex-
ecute the design, engineering and con-
struction for the project.
Scenario 3 allows the engineer and
constructor to bring their own game-
plan to the project. This too is effective,
due only to the fact that the learning
curve is minimal. Most engineering
firms will be prepared to execute a
project with their own set of specifi-
cations and guidelines. This applies
Engineeering Practice
Grounding Iug Iocation
4 in. typicaI
Figure 3. Incorporating a grounding
lug into the pipe will ensure proper ground-
ing, even if the pipe has been painted
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 52 6/28/07 8:30:18 PM
to qualified constructors as well. The
down side of this is in the project-to-
project inconsistency in specifications
and methodology when using different
engineers and constructors.
Scenario 2 is a worse case situation.
Ineffective and outdated owner speci-
fications create confusion and ineffi-
cient iterations in both the bid process
and the execution of a project. Sce-
nario 2 additionally creates the great-
est opportunity for conflicts between
owner documents and the engineers
documents. For project management,
this translates into change orders at
some point in a project.
A guideline should explain to the
engineering firm or constructor, in a
concise, definitive manner, just what
the owner expects in executing the
design and construction of a facility.
By actively and methodically devel-
oping a set of guidelines, an owner or
customer does not have to rely on an
outside resource, such as an engineer-
ing firm or constructor, to provide the
facility required and hoped for.
Developing guidelines to convey
your companys requirements and
expectations can be accomplished
using one or both of the following
two basic methods:
1. A formal point-by-point format that
covers all necessary criteria that
you, as the owner, require on a pro-
prietary basis, plus a listing and de-
scription of the necessary code and
GMP requirements
2. A narrative for each discipline that
allows the writer to expand and
define, in a much more descriptive
manner, the points that arent made
clear enough, or readily apparent in
the more formal format
The guideline can be structured on one
of the CSI formats. The format exam-
ples provided by CSI give a company
sufficient flexibility in writing guide-
lines, or specifications for that matter,
to allow the document to conform to its
own particular brand of requirements
and nuances. The format also lends a
degree of intra-industry conformity to
the guidelines and specifications, pro-
viding a degree of familiarity to the
engineers and constructors who will
have to adhere to them.
Design elements
In the first paragraph of this article,
I described the act of designing pip-
ing systems for a facility as bringing
a number of technical components to-
gether to make the pipe conform to a
specific set of requirements, within a
prescribed area.
Thats pretty simplistic, and does
not really convey the magnitude of
the experience, technical background
or the imagination required to ex-
ecute such a task. Experience is the
essential component here. And that is
simply because, aside from whatever
innate ability a good designer might
possess, the required knowledge is not
taught through formal education, but
is instead learned by experience.
Ongoing learning can be in the form
of organized classes, a mentor or any
other means available to help learn
and understand the physical require-
ments and restraints of various sys-
tems and industries.
Since we do not have enough space
here to cover all of the design elements,
I will key in on a few topics for clarifi-
cation. (And this doesnt even scratch
the surface.) We will discuss flanges,
pipe internal-surface finish, weld seam
factor, pipe wall thickness, MAWP and
MADP, design pressure and tempera-
ture, and charge accumulation.
Flanges
In Parts 1 and 2 of this series of ar-
ticles (see footnote on first page), we
discussed ASME flanges and their
classifications. Most designers are
familiar with ASME flange classifica-
tions such as 150, 300, 400, and so on.
And even though verbally stating 150
pound flange (the origin of this term is
discussed in Part 2) rolls off the tongue
much easier and is still an industry
accepted term, Class 150 is the proper
terminology and designation.
What may be less familiar is that
the class designation is a factor in the
calculation for determining the rated
working pressure of a flange. That cal-
culation is:
P P S P
T r c
b
1
8 750 / ,
(1)
where
P
c
= Ceiling pressure, psig, as speci-
fied in ASME B16.5, paragraph
D3, at temperature T
P
T
= Rated working pressure, psig, for
the specified material at temper-
ature T
P
r
= Pressure rating class index, psi
(for instance, P
r
= 300 psi for
Class 300). Note: This definition
of P
r
does not apply to Class 150.
See ASME B16.5, paragraphs
D2.2, D2.3 and D2.4
S
1
= Selected stress, psi, for the speci-
fied material at temperature T.
See ASME B16.5, paragraphs
D2.2, D2.3 and D2.4
Pipe internal-surface finish
Internal surface roughness is a topic
that is specific to the pharmaceutical,
bio-pharmaceutical and semiconduc-
Figure 4. Nonconducting gaskets between flanges can lead to improper ground-
ing between pipes. Introducing a continuity plate between the flanges is one way to
ensure proper grounding
Continuity pIate
(see detaiI)
Continuity fIange pIate
Continuity pIate detaiI
1/4-in. x 1/2-in.
Iarge hex. head screw
0.321-in. dia. sIotted hoIes
DriII & tap 1/4-in. x 3/8-in. deep
FIange
Lock washer
FIange
PIate
A A
3/4-in. wide
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 53 6/28/07 8:30:46 PM
tor sectors, but can also be an issue
throughout the CPI. Quantifying and
specifying a maximum surface rough-
ness for internal pipe wall for use in
what is referred to as direct impact
fluid services, is a necessity in the
above-mentioned sectors. Direct im-
pact piping systems are those systems
that carry product or carry a fluid ser-
vice that ultimately comes in contact
with product.
The need for a relatively smooth in-
ternal pipe wall is predicated on three
primary issues: 1. Cleanability and
drainability; 2. The ability to hinder
the growth of biofilm and to enhance
the ability to remove it once it does ap-
pear; and 3. To reduce, to a microscopic
level, crevices in which microscopic
particles can reside and at some point
dislodge and get carried along in the
fluid stream to damage product.
Regarding the first point, cleanabil-
ity and drainability are associative; in
order for a system to be fully cleanable
it has to be designed and laid out in a
manner that will eliminate any pock-
ets and provide enough slope to elimi-
nate any residual liquid (drainable).
Not only is this residual liquid (or
holdup) a contaminant from both
a bacterial standpoint and as a cross
batch contaminant but it can also
be expensive due to the high cost of
some drug products. Along those lines,
the ASME-BPE Standard provides
criteria for minimum slope, maximum
deadleg, gasket intrusion, gasket con-
cavity, and many other criteria for
design of cleanable and drainable hy-
gienic piping systems.
Regarding the second point, biofilm
is defined as a bacterial population
composed of cells that are firmly at-
tached as microcolonies to a solid sur-
face (see Figure 1).
At a recent ASME-BPE symposium
[1], Frank Riedewald, a senior process
engineer with Lockwood-Greene IDC
Ltd., explained the results of testing
that was performed to determine the
relationship between the formation of
biofilm, pipe wall-surface finish and
pipe wall-surface cleanability.
One of the many interesting factors
that came from these studies is the
fact that the internal surface of the
pipe wall can actually be too smooth.
Referring to the graph in Figure 2, re-
sults indicate that the surface finish
range best suited to reduce biofilm
adherence to the internal pipe wall
surface is from 0.4Ra m to 1.0Ra m
(15.7Ra in. to 58.8Ra in.). What this
implies is that, while we currently do
not have the means to prevent the
onset of biofilm on the internal walls
of hygienic or semiconductor piping
systems, we can facilitate its removal
in the cleaning process by specifying
the proper surface finish of the inter-
nal pipe walls.
The accepted maximum surface
finish in the pharmaceutical and bio-
pharmaceutical industries is 25Ra
in. (0.6 m). In the semiconductor in-
dustry you might typically see surface
finishes in the range of 7Ra in. to
15Ra in., particularly in gas delivery
systems. While the pharmaceutical
industry is concerned with bacterial
growth and cross contamination, the
semiconductor industry is concerned
more with particulate damage to prod-
uct on the microscopic level. This per-
tains to point three above.
Pipe weld seam factor
Part 2 of this series of articles men-
tioned the fact that the weld seam in
longitudinally welded pipe is a fac-
tor in the pipe-wall-pressure-design
thickness calculation.
In ASME B31.3, there are two pipe-
wall thicknesses for calculations. One
is pressure design thickness (t) and
the other is minimum required thick-
ness (t
m
).
There are two equations for finding
pressure-design thickness for straight
pipe under internal pressure. Equa-
tion 2 is where t < D/6, where D is the
actual pipe outer diameter (OD); this
calculation is based on internal pres-
sure, the actual (not nominal) OD of
the pipe, stress value of the material
at design temperature, joint efficiency
factor, and the coefficient Y [a factor
used to adjust internal pressure (P)
for a nominal material at tempera-
ture]. Equation 3 is used when t D/6;
this calculation is based on the above-
listed criteria except that ID is used
instead of OD, and the sum of all me-
chanical allowances is included.
t
PD
SE PY
=
+ 2( )
(2)
for when t < D/6
t
P d c
SE P Y
=
+

( )
[ ( )]
2
2 1
(3)
for when t D/6
t t c
m
= +
(4)
where
t = Pressure design thickness
t
m
= Minimum required thickness, in-
cluding mechanical, corrosion and
erosion allowances
c = Sum of the mechanical allowances
(thread or groove depth) plus cor-
rosion and erosion allowances.
For threaded components, the
nominal thread depth (dimension
h of ASME B1.20.1, or equivalent)
shall apply. For machined surfaces
or grooves where the tolerance is
not specified, the tolerance shall
be assumed to be 0.02 in. (0.5 mm)
in addition to the specified depth
of the cut
D = Actual pipe OD
d = Pipe ID
P = Internal design gage pressure
S = Stress value for material from
ASME B31.3 Table A-1, at design
temperature
E = Quality factor, or joint efficiency
factor
Y = Coefficient from ASME B31.3
Table 304.1.1
To determine wall thickness for pipe
under external pressure conditions,
refer to the Boiler and Pressure Ves-
sel Code (BPVC) Section VIII, Division
1, UG-28 through UG-30 and ASME
B31.3, paragraph 304.1.3.
Keep in mind that for seamless pipe,
E will be removed from Equations 2
and 3.
Determining MAWP
Taking a page from the BPVC, we will
go through a few brief steps to deter-
mine maximum-allowable working
pressure (MAWP) for straight pipe. But
let me begin by saying that MAWP is
not a B31.3 expression, it comes from
the BPVC. We will instead transpose
this term to MADP (maximum-allow-
able design pressure), which is also
not a B31.3 term, but more closely re-
lates to piping.
When a vessel goes into design it is
assigned a coincidental design pres-
sure and temperature. These are the
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 54 6/28/07 8:31:24 PM
maximum conditions the vessel is ex-
pected to experience while in service,
and what the engineers will design
the vessel to handle. The material, its
thickness, welds, nozzles, flanges, and
so on are all designed predicated on
this predetermined design criteria.
Throughout design, the vessels in-
tended maximum pressure is referred
to as its design pressure. All calcula-
tions are based on specified material
and component tolerances along with
fabrication specifics, meaning types
and sizes of welds, reinforcement and
so on. Not until after the vessel is fab-
ricated can the engineer know what
the actual material thickness is, the
type and size of each weld, thickness
of each nozzle neck, and so on. Only
when all of the factual data of con-
struction is accumulated and entered
into vessel engineering programs can
the MAWP be determined. This value,
once determined, then replaces the
design pressure, and is calculated
based on the installed configuration of
the vessel (that is, mounted vertically
or horizontally; mounted on legs; or
mounted on lugs).
The difference between the design
pressure and the MAWP is that the
engineer will design to the design
pressure, but the final MAWP is the
limiting pressure of the vessel. The
MAWP may exceed the design pres-
sure, but it can never be less than the
design pressure.
In applying this to piping we will
first calculate the burst pressure
of the pipe and then determine the
MAWP, or, as was mentioned earlier,
a term more closely related to piping,
the MADP.
There are three equations generally
used in calculating burst pressure for
pipe. They are:
The Barlow formula:
P
T S
D
BA
F T
=
2
(5)
The Boardman formula:
P
T S
D T
BO
F T
=

2
0 8 ( . )
(6)
The Lam formula:
P
S D d
D d
L
T
=

+
( )
( )
2 2
2 2
(7)
where
P
BA
= Burst pressure, psig (Barlow)
P
BO
= Burst pressure, psig (Board-
man)
P
L
= Burst pressure, psig (Lam)
D = Actual pipe OD, in.
d = Pipe ID, in.
T
F
= Wall thickness (minus factory
tolerance), in.
S
T
= Minimum tensile strength, psi,
from B31.3 Table A-1
S
f
= Safety factor, a factor of 3 or 4
is applied to burst pressure to
determine MADP
Using any of the three results from
any one of the above equations we
can then determine MADP (M) as fol-
lows:
(8)
M
P
S
i
f
=
where the subscript i is BA, BO, or L,
depending on which formula is used.
Design pressure & temperature
The ASME B31.3 definition for design
pressure and design temperature is
stated as two separate definitions. I
will integrate them into one by stat-
ing: The design pressure and tempera-
ture of each component in a piping
system shall be not less than the most
severe condition of coincident internal
or external pressure and temperature
(minimum or maximum)
expected during service.
B31.3 goes on to state:
The most severe condition
is that which results in
the greatest required com-
ponent thickness and the
highest component rating.
How do you determine
these values and where
do you apply them? Well
cover the where first. The
discussion on determin-
ing pipe wall thickness was based on
design conditions, in which P is the
internal design gage pressure and S
is the stress value at the design tem-
perature. Design conditions are also
used to determine component ratings
and as a basis for determining leak
test pressure.
There is no published standard, or
genuine industry consensus, on how
to determine design conditions. It ba-
sically comes down to an owners or
engineers experience. What I will pro-
vide here is a resultant philosophy de-
veloped from many sources along with
my own experiences.
To understand what constitutes de-
sign conditions, we first need to define
them. The following are some accepted
terms and their definitions:
System operating pressure: The
pressure at which a fluid service is ex-
pected to normally operate.
System design pressure: Unless ex-
tenuating process conditions dictate
otherwise, the design pressure is the
pressure at the most severe coinci-
dent of internal or external pressure
and temperature (minimum or maxi-
mum) expected during service, plus
the greater of 30 psi or 10%.
System operating temperature: The
temperature at which a fluid service is
expected to normally operate.
System design temperature: Unless
extenuating process conditions dictate
otherwise, the design temperature, for
operating temperatures between 32F
and 750F, this value shall be equal to
the maximum anticipated operating
temperature, plus 25F rounded off to
the next higher 5.
Applying a sort of philosophy cre-
ated by the above definitions is
somewhat straightforward for utility
services, such as steam, water, and
0.312-in. dia. boIthoIe
OD to match
gasket
Off-center
orifice
Pipe ID
Conductive
orifice
pIate
This point
aIways at
pipe invert
Modified continuity
fIange pIate
FIange
fIare or
face
Gasket
FIange
Conductive
orifice pIate
Figure 4:
0.312 " dia shouId be 0.321-in. dia.
remove ?????? PIate and just keep 3/4-in. wide
change " to in. everywhere, Lg. to Iarge, hd. to head
Remove Section A-A at bottom
Figure 5:
change " to in.
the caIIouts at the far right are missing arrowheads
Figure 5. Internal linings of nonconducting plastic in pipe can lead to undesirable and dan-
gerous charge accumulation. This can be prevented by introducing a conductivity orifice-plate
assembly, such as the one shown here (left, crosssectional view; right, side view)
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 55 6/28/07 8:31:53 PM
non-reactive chemicals. However, that
part of the above definitions for design
conditions that provide the caveat,
extenuating process conditions
implies a slightly different set of rules
for process systems.
Extenuating process conditions
can mean increased pressure and
temperature, beyond that defined
above, due to chemical reaction, loss
of temperature control in heat trans-
fer, and so on.
Charge buildup in lined pipe
Internal and external charge accumu-
lation, known as static electricity, or
more technically known as triboelec-
tric charge accumulation, is the result
of charge that is unable to dissipate.
If a charge generated in a flowing
fluid is allowed to dissipate to ground,
as it does in grounded metallic pipe,
then there is no problem. However, if
a charge cannot dissipate and is al-
lowed to accumulate, as it may in non-
conductive pipe liners, it now becomes
a problem by potentially becoming
strong enough to create an electro-
static discharge (ESD). With regard to
thermoplastic lined pipe there are two
forms of this to be considered: external
charge accumulation (ECA) and inter-
nal charge accumulation (ICA).
ECA. This is a concern with lined pipe
due to the possibility of not achiev-
ing spool-to-spool continuity during
installation due, in large part, to im-
proved paint primer on flanges. When
pipe spools (lined or unlined) are
joined by flanges using non-metallic
gaskets, the only thing that completes
the spool-to-spool continuity is the
bolting. The improved paint primer on
lined pipe flanges makes this more dif-
ficult to achieve because normal bolt
tightening doesnt guarantee metal-
to-metal contact between the nut and
the flange.
Pipe generally does not come with a
prime coat of paint; however, lined pipe
does. Since flange bolts are used to
complete continuity from spool to spool,
the installer has to make certain, when
installing lined pipe, that the bolts, at
least one of the bolts, has penetrated
the primer and made contact with
bare metal. This was achieved in the
past by using star washers on at least
one flange bolt while assuming pos-
sible bare metal contact with the other
bolts, allowing the washers, as they
were tightened, to scrape away the
prime coat so that contact was made
with the bare metal of the flange. With
improved prime coat material this is
no longer a guarantee.
If continuity from spool to spool
is not achieved, any charge genera-
tion resulting from an internal or
an external source cannot readily
dissipate to ground. The voltage in
triboelectric charge generation will
build until it is strong enough to
jump to the closest grounded object
creating an undesired spark of elec-
tricity (ESD).
ICA. With regard to pipe, ICA is
unique to thermoplastic lined pipe
and solid thermoplastic pipe. Without
being impregnated with a conduc-
tive material, thermoplastics are not
good conductors of electricity. PTFE
(polytetrafluoroethylene), as an ex-
ample, has a high (>10
16
Ohms/unit
area), resistivity factor. This is a rela-
tively high resistance to conductivity,
which means that any charge created
inside the pipe cannot readily be con-
ducted away to ground by way of the
PTFE liner. Instead, the charge will
be allowed to build until it exceeds
its total dielectric strength and burns
a pinhole in the liner to the internal
metal wall of the casement pipe. It
isnt charge generation itself that is
the problem, its the charge accumula-
tion. When the rate of charge genera-
tion is greater than the rate of charge
relaxation (the ability of material to
conduct away the generated charge),
charge accumulation occurs.
The dielectric strength of PTFE is
450 to 500 volts/mil. This indicates
that for every 0.001 in. of PTFE liner
450 V of triboelectric charge will be
required to penetrate the liner. For a
2-in. pipeline with a 0.130-in. thick
liner, this translates into 58,500 V of
triboelectric charge to burn through
the liner thickness.
When the liner is penetrated by
an accumulated charge, two addi-
tional problems are created: 1. Corro-
sive fluid (a major use of lined pipe)
is now in contact with and corroding
the metal pipe wall and at some point,
depending on rate of corrosion, will
fail locally and cause fluid to leak to
the environment, and 2. The initial
charge that burned through the liner
is now charging the outer metal pipe.
If continuity has not been achieved for
the outer pipe, a spark of triboelectric
charge is, at some point, going to jump
to ground and cause a spark.
Corrective action
ECG. The simplest method to ensure
continuity is to sand away any primer
on the back side of each flange to en-
sure good metal-to-metal contact be-
tween nut and flange. Aside from
that or the use of a conductive prime
paint, the current ready-made solu-
tion to the external continuity problem
is the addition of stud bolts located in
close proximity to flanges on both pipe
spools and fittings (see Figure 3). These
studs can be applied at the factory or in
the field. At each flange joint a ground-
ing strap (jumper) is then affixed to a
stud on one spool with a nut, extended
over the flange joint and attached to a
stud on the connecting spool complet-
ing continuity throughout the chain of
connecting spools and fittings.
Another method of creating continu-
ity at flange joints, while being less ob-
trusive and more integral, is described
as follows.
Referring to Figure 4, flanges would
be purchased pre-drilled and tapped
in the center of the outer edge of the
flange between the backside of the
flange and the face side of the flange.
The drilled and tapped hole in each
flange will need to be centered between
bolt holes so that they line up after the
flange bolts are installed. The tapped
hole is 1/4-in. dia. x 1/2-in. deep.
After a flange set is installed and
fully bolted, the continuity plate
(Figure 4) can be installed using two
1/4-in. x 1/2-in. long hex-head screws
and two lock washers. The Continu-
ity Plate has two 0.312-in. slotted
TABLE 1.
RECOMMENDED VELOCITIES
Liquid
conductivity
BS 5958 recom-
mended flow velocity
>1,000 pS/m No restriction
50 1,000
pS/m
Less than 7 m/s
Less than 50
pS/m
Less than 1 m/s
Note: pS/m (picosiemens/meter)
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 56 6/28/07 8:32:27 PM
Author
construction since 1965.
Positions have included de-
sign engineer, piping design
instructor, project engineer,
project supervisor, pip-
ing department supervisor,
engineering manager and
president of W. M. Huitt Co.
(P.O. Box 31154, St. Louis,
MO 63131-0154. Phone: 314-966-8919; Email:
wmhuitt@aol.com) a piping consulting firm
founded in 1987. His experience covers both the
engineering and construction fields and crosses
industrial lines to include petroleum refining,
chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, pulp
& paper, nuclear power, and coal gasification.
He has written numerous specifications includ-
ing engineering and construction guidelines to
ensure that design and construction comply
with code requirements, owner expectations
and good design practices. Bill is a member of
ISPE (International Society of Pharmaceutical
Engineers), CSI (Construction Specifications
Institute) and ASME (American Society of
Mechanical Engineers). He is a contributor to
ASME-BPE and sits on two corporate specifica-
tion review boards.
boltholes allowing for misalignment
and movement.
The entire continuity plate assem-
bly is relatively simple to install, un-
obtrusive and establishes integral
contact with the pipeline.
ICG. One of the first options in pre-
venting internal charge accumulation
is by minimizing charge generation.
This can be done by adjusting the flow
velocity relative to the liquids conduc-
tivity. To minimize design impact, cost
and even schedule impact on a project,
ICG needs to be evaluated early in
the project due to the possibility of a
change in line size.
To retard charge generation by re-
ducing flow velocities, British Stan-
dard (BS) suggests the values pre-
sented Table 1 (per BS 5958).
If velocity reduction is not an op-
tion, or if further safeguards against
charge accumulation are warranted,
then a mechanical solution to pro-
vide a path to ground for ICG might
be nrcessary.
One method for conducting charge
accumulation from the interior of the
pipe to ground is indicated in Figure 5.
What is shown is an orifice plate made
of conductive (static dissipative) mate-
rial that is compatible with the fluid
service. The orifice itself is off center
to the OD of the plate and the pipeline
itself. With the shallow portion of the
ID at the invert of the pipe, the orifice
allows the piping to drain in horizon-
tal runs.
The tab portion of the plate extends
beyond the flange OD. On the tab is
a bolthole for attaching the modified
continuity flange plate. The plate
is designed to come in contact with
the interior surface of the liner wall
as well as protrude into the flowing
fluid to provide a conduit for inter-
nally generated charge. Continuity is
achieved by attaching the plate to the
flange OD that is in contact with the
piping, which is, in turn, grounded
through equipment.
Recommendations
It is difficult to pre-determine what
fluid services and systems will be
candidates for charge accumulation
prevention and electrostatic dis-
charge protection. The simplest and
most conservative answer is to as-
sume that all fluid services in lined
pipe systems are susceptible. In say-
ing that, we then have to declare that
a companys pipe specifications need
to reflect a global resolution that will
affect all installations.
With regard to ECA, the recommen-
dation for future installations with
the least impact would be to specify
pipe with no prime coat or at least
no primer on the flanges, or a prime
coat using a conductive paint. The un-
primed pipe would be primed prior to
installation with care given to primer
touchup on flanges after installation.
This would better ensure spool-to-
spool external continuity.
For existing installations, either the
studs or the continuity plate installa-
tion would work. It can also be sug-
gested that the continuity plates can
be tacked on to one flange rather than
drilling and tapping both flanges.
For dissipating ICG, the orifice
plate, as shown in Figure 5, is the only
recommendation.
Edited by Gerald Ondrey
References
1. Riedewald, Frank, Microbial Biofilms
Are they a problem in the pharmaceuti-
cal industry?ASME-BPE Symposium, Cork,
Ireland, June 2004.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Earl Lamson, senior project
manager at Eli Lilly and Co., for taking time out
of a busy schedule to read this article with the
same skill, intelligence and insight he brings to
everything he does. His comments kept me con-
cise and on track.
Bioengineering
Inversina
the gentle way
of mixing.
The Inversina mixes solids or liquids
thoroughly and efficiently. The process
is clean, because mixing takes place in
closed containers that can be quickly
interchanged. The Inversina mixes a
diverse range of components rapidly
and in an extremely gentle way.
Segregation does not occur, even
after extended mixing times, by virtue
of the eversion phenomenon ( Paul
Schatz principle).
Applications for the Inversina: analyti-
cal labs, metal finishing shops, powder
metallurgy and nuclear industry,
manufacture of batteries, cement,
ceramics, cosmetics, dental products,
diamond tools, dyes and pigments,
electrical and electronic devices,
explosives and pyrotechnics, foods,
homeopathic products, household
products, medicines and pharmaceu-
ticals, plastics, printing inks and many
other products. The Bioengineering
Inversina is available with capacities
of 2, 20, 50, 100 and 300 L.
Bioengineering, Inc.
Waltham, MA 02451, USA
Bioengineering AG
8636 Wald, Switzerland
info@bioengineering.ch
www.bioengineering.ch
Circle 44 on p. 82 or go to
adlinks.che.com/6897-44
50-57 CHE 7-07.indd 57 6/28/07 8:32:49 PM
William M. Huitt
W.M. Huitt Co.
T
his fourth in a series of articles*
on piping for process plants ex-
amines two topics that may, at
first, seem to fall outside the
scope of chemical engineering pip-
ing codes and the pipe fabrication.
Obviously chemical engineers will not
be welding pipes together, but under-
standing the benefits and limitations
of different types of welding processes,
for example, can help the engineer
when designing the system that needs
to be welded.
But before we get into fabrication,
a general overview of piping codes is
presented in order to answer the fol-
lowing questions: Why is it necessary
to comply with piping codes? What
is the difference between a code and
a concensus standard? Which code
should I follow?
PIPING CODE
Codes and standards
The querry, Why do we, as a company,
need to comply with a piping code? is
actually a trick question. Code, by defi-
nition is law with statutory force. There-
fore the reason for complying with a
code is because you literally have to, or
else be penalized for non-compliance.
A better question would be, Why
comply with or adopt a piping con-
sensus standard? When phrased this
way, the question supports the au-
thors contention that many engineers
and designers do not fully understand
the difference between a code and a
standard. And it doesnt help matters
when some standards are published
as a code, and some codes are pub-
lished as a standard. This is certainly
nothing to get excited about, but it is
something worth pointing out.
My take on the reason for the mis-
understanding of these two closely re-
lated terms, standard and code, is that
they get bounced around so often in
the same context that designers and
engineers simply begin interchanging
the two terms without much consider-
ation for their different meanings. The
difference between a standard and a
code will be explained shortly, but first
lets respond to the first question.
Why comply?
Consensus standards such as those
published by ASME (American Soc.
of Mechanical Engineering), ANSI
(American National Standards Inst.),
API (Americal Petroleum Inst.), NFPA
(National Fire Protection Assn.), ASTM
(American Soc. for Testing and Mate-
rials), International Plumbing Code
and others are not mandatory in and
of themselves. However, federal, state,
city and other local codes are manda-
tory. In these municipal codes you will
find regulations that establish various
requirements taken in whole, or in part
from the standards published by the
above listed organizations, and others,
as legally binding requirements. These
standards, as adopted, then become
code, which is enforceable by law.
When not addressed on a municipal
level, but included in corporate speci-
fications, the standard becomes a legal
code on a contractual basis.
Compliance with these codes, irre-
spective of government regulations or
corporate requirements, doesnt cost
the builder any more than if it didnt
comply. It does, however, cost more to
fabricate and install piping systems
that have a high degree of integrity as
opposed to systems that dont.
Hiring non-certified welders and
plumbers, bypassing inspections, ex-
aminations and testing, using material
that may potentially not withstand
service pressures and temperatures,
68 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com oCtober 2007
Piping for Process Plants, Part 4:
Codes and Fabrication
Besides flanges, there are also several different
types of joints and welding processes to choose
from. Additional decisions involve piping codes
Feature Report Engineering Practice
* Part 1: The Basics, CE February, pp. 4247;
Part 2: Flanges, CE March, pp. 5661; Part 3:
Design Elements, CE July, pp. 5057)
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 68 9/29/07 5:38:39 PM
and supporting this type of system
with potentially inadequate supports
is less costly initially, but theres too
much at risk. I dont think anyone in
good conscience would intentionally
attempt to do something like that in
order to save money.
If anyone intends on fabricating
and installing a piping system plans
to perform any of the following points,
then they are essentially complying
with code:
Use listed material
Specify material that meets the re-
quirements for fluid service, pres-
sure and temperature
Inspect the material for MOC (mate-
rial of construction), size and rating
Use certified welders and plumbers
Inspect welds and brazing
Adequately support the pipe
Test the pipe for tightness
The code simply explains how to do
each of these activities in a formal,
well thought-out manner.
There is not a reason sufficiently
good enough to not comply with ap-
propriate industry standards and
codes. If there was a fee involved for
compliance, this might be a stimulus
for debate. But there is no fee, and
there is usually just too much at stake
to ignore them. Even with utility sys-
tems in an administration building or
an institutional facility, the potential
damage from a ruptured pipeline, or
a slow leak at an untested joint could
easily overshadow any savings gained
in non-compliance. Thats without con-
sidering the safety risk to personnel.
The first thing that someone should
do, if they are considering to do oth-
erwise, is check local and state codes.
They may find regulations that require
adherence to ASME, the International
Plumbing Code or some of the other
consensus standards. If not already
included, this should be a requirement
within any companys specifications.
Finally, it is worth taking a histori-
cal aside to make a point. ASME pub-
lished the first edition of the Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code in 1914
1915. Prior to creation of the code,
and what played a large part in insti-
gating its creation, was that between
1870 and 1910 approximately 14,000
boilers had exploded. Some were dev-
astating to both people and property.
Those numbers fell off drastically as
the code was adopted. Uniformity and
regulation does have its place.
Which code to follow?
Like the seatbelt law, code compliance
is not just the law, it makes good sense.
A professional consensus standard is,
very simply put, a code waiting to be
adopted. Take the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC): since
its first publication in 1915 it has been
adopted by 49 states, all the provinces
of Canada, and accepted by regulatory
authorities in over 80 countries.
On May 18, 2005, it was finally ad-
opted by the 50th state, South Caro-
lina. And this doesnt mean the BPVC
is adopted in its entirety. A state, or
corporation for that matter, can adopt
a single section or multiple sections
of the BPVC, or it can adopt the code
in its entirety. Until South Carolina
adopted the BPVC, it was actually no
more than a standard in that state and
only required compliance when stipu-
lated in a specification. However, in all
honesty you would not get a U.S. boiler
or pressure vessel manufacturer to by-
pass code compliance. That is, unless
you wanted to pay their potential at-
torneys fees.
With regard to code compliance,
the question often asked is, How do I
determine which piping code, or stan-
dard, I should comply with for my par-
ticular project?
Determining proper code applica-
tion is relatively straightforward and
at the same time comes with a certain
degree of latitude to the owner in mak-
ing the final determination. In some
cases that determination is made for
the engineer or contractor at the state
level, the local level or by an owner
company itself. Providing guidelines
for code adoption on a project basis is
direction that should be included in
any companys set of specifications,
but quite often is not. This can cause a
number of disconnects through design
and construction.
In order to answer the question
about code assignment some history
has to be told. In keeping this brief I
will just touch on the high points. In
1942, ASA B31.1 American Stan-
dard Code for Pressure Piping was
published by the American Standards
Piping for Process Plants, Part 4:
Codes and Fabrication
Bioengineering
Inversina
the gentle way
of mixing.
The Inversina mixes solids or liquids
thoroughly and efficiently. The process
is clean, because mixing takes place in
closed containers that can be quickly
interchanged. The Inversina mixes a
diverse range of components rapidly
and in an extremely gentle way.
Segregation does not occur, even
after extended mixing times, by virtue
of the eversion phenomenon ( Paul
Schatz principle).
Applications for the Inversina: analyti-
cal labs, metal finishing shops, powder
metallurgy and nuclear industry,
manufacture of batteries, cement,
ceramics, cosmetics, dental products,
diamond tools, dyes and pigments,
electrical and electronic devices,
explosives and pyrotechnics, foods,
homeopathic products, household
products, medicines and pharmaceu-
ticals, plastics, printing inks and many
other products. The Bioengineering
Inversina is available with capacities
of 2, 20, 50, 100 and 300 L.
Bioengineering, Inc.
Waltham, MA 02451, USA
Bioengineering AG
8636 Wald, Switzerland
info@bioengineering.ch
www.bioengineering.ch
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 69 9/29/07 5:40:07 PM
Association (ASA). This would later
change to B31.1 Power Piping.
In the early 1950s the decision was
made to create additional B31 Codes
in order to better define the require-
ments for more specific needs. The
first of those Standards was ASA
B31.8 Gas Transmission and Dis-
tribution Piping Systems, which was
published in 1955. In 1959 the first
ASA B31.3 Petroleum Refinery Pip-
ing Standard was published.
After some reorganization and or-
ganizational name changes the ASA
became ANSI. Subsequent code revi-
sions were designated as ANSI Codes.
In 1978, ASME was granted accredita-
tion by ANSI to organize the B31 Com-
mittee as the ASME Code for Pressure
Piping. This changed the code designa-
tion to ANSI/ASME B31.
Since 1955 the B31 Committee
has continued to categorize, create
and better define code requirements
for specific segments of the industry.
Through the years since then they
have created, not necessarily in this
order: B31.4 Liquid Transportation
Piping; B31.5 Refrigeration Piping;
B31.9 Building Services Piping;
and B31.11 Slurry Transportation
Piping. Each of these standards is con-
sidered a stand-alone section of the
ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.
What the B31 committee has ac-
complished, and is continuing to im-
prove upon, are standards that are
better focused on specific segments of
industry. This alleviates the need for a
designer or constructor building an in-
stitutional type facility from having to
familiarize themselves with the more
voluminous B31.3 or even a B31.1.
They can work within the much less
stringent and extensive requirements
of B31.9, a standard created for and
much more suitable to that type of de-
sign and construction.
As mentioned above, ASME B31.1
Power Piping, was first published in
1942. Its general scope reads: Rules
for this Code Section have been devel-
oped considering the needs for appli-
cations which include piping typically
found in electric power generating sta-
tions, in industrial and institutional
plants, geothermal heating systems,
and central and district heating and
cooling systems.
The general scope of ASME B31.3
Process Piping, reads: Rules for the
Process Piping Code have been devel-
oped considering piping typically found
in petroleum refineries, chemical, phar-
maceutical, textile, paper, semiconduc-
tor and cryogenic plants; and related
processing plants and terminals.
ASME B31.5 Refrigeration Pip-
ing, applies to refrigerant and second-
ary coolant piping systems.
Closely related to B31.1, but not
having the size, pressure or tempera-
ture range, B31.9 was first published
in 1982. It was created to fill the need
for piping in limited service require-
ments. Its scope is narrowly focused
on only those service conditions that
may be required to service the utility
needs of operating a commercial, insti-
tutional or residential building.
From its shear scope of responsibil-
ity, B31.3 encompasses virtually all
piping, including those also covered
by B31.1 (except for boiler external
piping), B31.5 and B31.9. The differ-
ence, and distinction, as to which code
should apply to a particular project,
lies with the definition and scope of
the project itself.
If a project includes only the instal-
lation of perhaps a refrigeration sys-
tem, B31.5 would apply. If a projects
scope of work consists of an office, lab-
oratory, research facility, institutional
facility or any combination thereof,
B31.1 or B31.9 and possibly B31.5
would apply. A laboratory or research
facility could possibly require fluid
services beyond the fluid service lim-
its of B31.9. In that case, B31.3 would
be adopted for those services.
In the case of a process manufactur-
ing facility, B31.3 would be the govern-
ing code. Since B31.3 covers all piping,
B31.5 or B31.9 would not need to be
included, not even necessarily with as-
sociated laboratory, office and research
facilities. The only time B31.5 or B31.9
would become governing codes, in as-
S
ince 1956 the employees of Mueller
Steam Specialty have been dedi-
cated to the manufacture of high quality
products delivered on time and with
superior customer service. Our core line of
rugged strainers is available in a wide
range of types and materials. Whether you
require basket strainers, Y strainers,
Tee type strainers, duplex strainers, or
even temporary strainers, Mueller will
deliver your order from stock or custom
engineer and manufacture it to your require-
ments. In addition to its strainer line,
Mueller offers a full line of check valves,
butterfly valves, pump protection and
specialty products for a variety of industries
and applications. Choose Mueller Steam
Specialty for your next project.
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 70 9/29/07 5:40:38 PM
sociation with a manufacturing facil-
ity, is if a refrigeration unit, or an of-
fice, laboratory and/or research facility
were under a separate design/construct
contract from the process manufactur-
ing facility. Or if it was a substantial
part of the overall project.
As an example, project XYZ consists
of a process manufacturing facility,
related office building and lab facili-
ties. If the utility service piping for the
office and lab facilities is a small per-
centage of the overall project, and/or
the design and construction contracts
for those facilities are a part of the
overall process manufacturing facility,
all piping, with code exclusions, could
be governed by B31.3.
If, however, the office and labora-
tory facilities were a substantial part
of the overall project, or they were to
go to a separate constructor, it may
be more beneficial to determine bat-
tery limits for those facilities and
designate anything inside those bat-
tery limits as B31.1 or B31.9 and/or
B31.5. In such a case, separate pipe
specifications may have to be issued
for those portions of the project des-
ignated as being governed by B31.9.
This is due to the range of fluid ser-
vices and the corresponding pressure
and temperature limits of B31.9 com-
pared to those of B31.3. These differ-
ences in code assignment and battery
limits may be a driver for the projects
contracting strategy.
Many piping service requirements,
such as steam, air, chilled water and
so on, can come under the auspices of
multiple codes. These fluid services,
which fall within the definition of
B31.3 Category D fluid services, can
just as easily fall within the require-
ments of B31.1 or B31.9 as well. In an
effort at maintaining a high degree of
continuity in the process of making
the determination of which code to
apply to a project, company guidelines
should be well defined.
The final determination
as to what constitutes a
governing code, within
the purview of the above
mentioned codes, is left
to the owner and/or to the
local governing jurisdic-
tion. Engineering specifi-
cations should clarify and
reflect the intent of the owner and the
respective codes in an attempt to pro-
vide consistency and direction across
all projects within a company.
PIPE FABRICATION
Entering this section on fabrication
does not mean that we leave engineer-
ing behind. Indeed, the majority, if not
all, fabricators (referring to the fabri-
cators that are qualified for heavy in-
dustrial work) will have an engineer-
ing staff.
As a project moves from the design
phase into the construction phase,
anyone with a modicum of project ex-
perience can acknowledge the fact that
there will most certainly be conflicts,
errors and omissions, no matter how
diligent one thinks he or she is during
design. This is inherent in the meth-
odology of todays design/engineering
process. Although there are methods
and approaches to design in which
this expected result can be minimized,
it is always prudent to be prepared for
such errors and omissions.
If, on the other hand, the assump-
tion is made that the Issued for Con-
struction design drawings will facili-
tate fabrication and installation with
minimal problems, then you can ex-
pect to compound whatever problems
do occur because you werent prepared
to handle them. The greatest asset a
project manager can have is the abil-
ity to learn from past experience and
the talent to put into practice what he
or she has learned.
Pipe fabrication, in the context of
this article, is defined as the construc-
tion of piping systems by forming and
assembling pipe and components with
the use of flanged, threaded, clamped,
grooved, crimped and welded joints.
In Part 2 of this series, we dis-
cussed the flange joint; the others
will be discussed here. There are var-
ious factors, or considerations, that
prompt the decision as to which type
of connection to use in the assembly
of a piping system. To start with, any
mechanical joint is considered a po-
tential leak point and should be mini-
mized. Also, the decision as to which
type of joint should be specified comes
down to accessibility requirements,
installation requirements and joint
integrity. Using that as our premise,
we can continue to discuss the vari-
ous joining methods.
Threaded joint
Pipe thread, designated as NPT
(National Pipe Taper) under ASME
B1.20.1, is the type of thread used in
joining pipe. This is a tapered thread
that, with sealant, allows the threads to
form a leak-tight seal by jamming them
together as the joint is tightened.
The same criteria described (in Part
2) for the threaded flange joint apply
also to threaded fittings, in which the
benefits of the threaded joint is both
in cost savings and in eliminating
the need for welding. In this regard,
threaded components are sometimes
used in high-pressure service in which
the operating temperature is ambient.
They are not suitable where high tem-
peratures, cyclic conditions or bending
stresses can be potential concerns.
Hygienic clamp joint
The clamped joint refers to the sanitary
or hygienic clamp (Figure 1). Three in-
stalled conditions of the hygienic joint,
minus the clamp are presented in Fig-
ure 1. Joint A represents a clamp con-
nection that has been over tightened
causing the gasket to intrude into the
inner diameter (ID) of the tubing. This
creates a damming effect, preventing
the system from completely draining.
In joint B, the clamp wasnt tight-
ened enough and left a recess at the
gasket area. This creates a pocket
where residue can accumulate, so
cleanability becomes an issue.
Joint C represents a joint in which
the proper torque was applied to the
clamp leaving the ID of the gasket
flush with the ID of the tubing.
The clamp C representation is the
result that we want to achieve with
the hygienic clamp. The problem is
that this is very difficult to control on
a repeatable basis. Even when the gas-
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com oCtober 2007 71
" # $
Figure 1. Problems can arise with a clamped joint
if not properly installed. Overtightening the clamp can
cause the gasket to intrude into the tubing (A), whereas
undertightening results in pockets where residue can
accumulate (B). The ideal situation is joint C
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 71 9/29/07 5:41:06 PM
ket and ferrules are initially lined up
with proper assembly and torque on
the joint, some gasket materials have
a tendency to creep (creep relaxation),
or cold flow.
Creep relaxation is defined as: A
transient stress-strain condition in
which strain increases concurrently
with the decay of stress. More simply
put, it is the loss of tightness in a gas-
ket, measurable by torque loss.
Cold flow is defined as: Permanent
and continual deformation of a ma-
terial that occurs as a result of pro-
longed compression or extension at or
near room temperature.
There have been a number of both
gasket and fitting manufacturers
that have been investing a great deal
of research in attempting to resolve
this issue with the clamp joint. Some
of the solutions regarding fittings
were addressed in Part 2 of this se-
ries. Additionally, gasket manufac-
turers and others have been work-
ing on acceptable gasket materials
that have reduced creep relaxation
factors, as well as compression con-
trolled gasket designs.
What is meant by acceptable gasket
material is a gasket that is not only
compatible with the hygienic fluid ser-
vice, but also meets certain U.S. FDA
(or comparable) requirements. Those
requirements include gasket material
that complies with USP Biological Re-
activity Test #87 & 88 Class VI for Plas-
tics and FDA CFR Title 21 Part 177.
Grooved joint
The grooved joint (Figure 2), from a static
internal-pressure-containment stand-
point, is as good as or, in some cases,
superior to the ASME Class 150 flange
joint. In the smaller sizes (1 to 4 in.), the
working pressure limit will be equal to
that of a Class 300, carbon-steel, ASTM
A105, ASME B16.5 flange.
The main weakness of the grooved
joint is the bending and torsional stress
allowable at the coupling. This stress
can be alleviated with proper support.
Because of this design characteristic, the
manufacturers of grooved joint systems
have focused their efforts and created a
niche in the fire-protection and utility-
fluid service requirements, with the ex-
ception of steam and steam condensate.
The grooved joint is comparatively
easy to install, which is particularly
important in areas that would require
a fire card for welding. Since no weld-
ing is required, modifications can be
made while operation continues. Some
contractors choose to couple at every
joint and fitting, while others choose
to selectively locate couplings, much
as you would selectively locate a flange
joint in a system. Its a decision that
should be made based on the particu-
lar requirements or preference of a
project or facility.
Pressed joint
The pressed joint (Figure 3) is actually
a system that uses thin wall pipe, up
through 2-in. NPT, to enable the join-
ing of pipe and fittings with the use
of a compression tool. Welding is not
required, and threading is only neces-
sary when required for instrument or
equipment connection.
These types of systems are available
from various manufacturers in carbon
steel, 316 and 304 stainless steel and
copper. Because of the thin wall pipe,
corrosion allowance becomes a big
consideration with carbon steel.
While the static internal pressure
rating of these systems is comparable
to an ASME Class 150 flange joint,
there are additional fluid-service and
installation characteristics that need
to be considered. With axial and tor-
sional loading being the weak spots in
these systems, they are not practical
where water hammer is a potential,
Q QUICK UICK AND AND S SIMPLE IMPLE
G GET ET R RESUL ESULTS TS IN IN M MINUTES INUTES
N NO O H HAZARDOUS AZARDOUS C CHEMICALS HEMICALS OR OR R REAGENTS EAGENTS
600C 600C
O ONE NE S SIMPLE IMPLE T TEST EST FOR FOR
M MOISTURE OISTURE, S , SOLIDS OLIDS AND AND A ASH SH
COMPUTRAC
COMPUTRAC

MAX
MAX

5000
5000
MOISTURE/SOLIDS/ASH
ANALYZER
EXCLUSIVE MANUFACTURER OF COMPUTRAC
MOISTURE ANALYZERS AND JEROME
MERCURY AND HYDROGEN SULFIDE ANALYZERS

F FREE REE T TRIALS RIALS
F FREE REE A APPLICA PPLICATION TION
D DEVELOPMENT EVELOPMENT
24-H 24-HOUR OUR
C CUST USTOMER OMER
S SUPPORT UPPORT
C CALL ALL U US S T TODA ODAY Y T TO O
F FIND IND O OUT UT M MORE ORE!! !!
(800) 528.741 (800) 528.7411 1
(602) 470.1414 (602) 470.1414
WWW WWW. . AZIC AZIC. . COM COM
COME VISIT US AT:
C CHEM HEM S SHOW HOW
NEW YORK, NY
BOOTH #943
OCT. 30-NOV. 1, 2007
Groove
Gasket
Housing
BoIt/nut
Figure 2. When properly supported,
the grooved joint can perform as well as
a flanged joint
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 72 9/29/07 5:41:36 PM
such as in steam-condensate service.
The axial load consideration carries
over to supporting the pipe as well.
Ensure that vertical runs of this pipe
are supported properly from beneath.
Do not allow joints in vertical runs to
be under tension. They must be sup-
ported properly from the base of the
vertical run.
Welded joint
The welded joint is by far the most in-
tegrated and secure joint you can have.
When done properly, a welded joint is
as strong as the pipe itself. The key
to a welds integrity lies in the crafts-
manship of the welder or welding op-
erator, the performance qualification
of the welder or welding operator, and
the weld procedure specification.
Before going further, I want to ex-
plain the difference between the
terms welder and welding operator. A
welder is someone who welds by hand,
or manually. A welding operator is
someone who operates an automatic
welding machine. The ends of the pipe
still have to be prepared and aligned
manually, and the automatic welding
machine has to be programmed.
The advantage of machine welding
is apparent in doing production welds.
This is shop welding in which there
is a quantity of welds to be made on
the same material type, wall thick-
ness and nominal pipe size. Once the
machine is set up for a run of typical
pipe like this, it is very efficient and
consistent in its weld quality.
This is another topic that could
easily stand alone as an article, but
instead, here we will focus on some
of the primary types of welding used
with pipe. Those types include the fol-
lowing: GMAW (gas metal arc weld-
ing) or MIG (metal inert gas); GTAW
(gas tungsten arc welding) or TIG
(tungsten inert gas); SMAW
(shielded metal arc welding) or
MMA (manual metal arc) or stick
welding; and FCAW (flux cored
automatic welding).
GMAW: Often referred to as MIG,
GMAW can be an automatic or
semi-automatic welding process.
It is a process by which a shield-
ing gas and a continuous, consum-
able wire electrode is fed through
the same gun (Figure 4a). The
shielding gas is an inert or semi-inert
gas such as argon or CO
2
that protects
the weld area from atmospheric gases,
which can detrimentally affect the
weld area.
There are four commonly used
methods of metal transfer used in
GMAW. They are:
globular
short-circuiting
spray
pulsed-spray
With the use of a shielding gas, the
GMAW process is better used indoors
or in an area protected from the wind.
If the shielding gas is disturbed, the
weld area can be affected.
GTAW: Most often referred to as TIG,
welding, GTAW can be automatic or
manual. It uses a nonconsumable
tungsten electrode to make the weld
(Figure 4b), which can be done with
filler metal or without filler metal
(autogenous). The TIG process is more
exacting, but also more complex and
slower than MIG welding.
In Part 2 of this series, the use of
orbital welding was mentioned for
hygienic tube welding. Orbital weld-
ing uses the GTAW method. Once the
orbital welder is programmed for the
material it is welding, it will provide
excellent welds on a consistent basis
provided, that is, that the chemistry
of the base material is within allow-
able ranges.
A wide differential in sulfur content
between the two components being
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com oCtober 2007 73
LEADING WORLDWIDE IN MIXING TECHNOLOGIES
Advanced Pr ocess Sol ut i ons
www.ekato.com
GROUP
Your contact in Europe
Tel.: +49 7622 29-0
e-mail: info@ekato.com
Your contact in the USA
Tel.: +1 201 825 4684
e-mail: ecorp@ekato.com
The EKATO GROUP provides their customers with the technical excellence and
experience of a global market leader. The companies within the EKATO GROUP
operate across the spectrum of mixing technologies.
From simple laboratory mixers to turnkey production plants, the EKATO GROUP provides a range of
engineering services and custom-made solutions for the most challenging customer applications. The
synergies within the EKATO GROUP ensure that reliable and cost-effective solutions can be provided
to the highest quality standards for every application. This is supported by a global service network.
O-ring
pocket
O-ring
Unpressed Pressed
O-ring
Insertion
mark Bead
Housing
Exaggerated for clarity
Patented
Pressfit tooI
indent
Pipe stop
Groove
Gasket
Housing
BoIt/nut
Figure 3. Welding is not required for the
pressed joint, but corrosion can be an issue
due to the thin walls
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 73 9/29/07 5:42:12 PM
joined can cause the weld to drift
into the high sulfur side. This can
cause welds to be rejected due to
lack of full penetration.
SMAW: Also referred to as MMA
welding, or just simply stick weld-
ing, SMAW is the most common
form of welding used. It is a manual
form of welding that uses a consum-
able electrode, which is coated with
a flux (Figure 4c). As the weld is
being made, the flux breaks down to
form a shielding gas that protects
the weld from the atmosphere.
The SMAW welding process is ver-
satile and simple, which allows it to be
the most common weld done today.
FCAW: Flux cored arc welding is a semi-
automatic or automatic welding process.
It is similar to MIG welding, but the
continuously fed, consumable wire has
a flux core. The flux provides the shield-
ing gas that protects the weld area from
the atmosphere during welding.
Welding pipe
The majority of welds you will see in
pipe fabrication will be full-penetra-
tion circumferential buttwelds, fillet
welds or a combination of the two.
The circumferential buttwelds are
the welds used to weld two pipe ends
together or other components with
buttweld ends. Fillet welds are used
at socketweld joints and at slip-on
flanges. Welds in which a combination
of the buttweld and fillet weld would
be used would be at a stub-in joint or
a similar joint.
A stub-in joint (not to be confused
with a stub-end) is a connection in
which the end of a pipe is welded to
the longitudinal run of another pipe
(Figure 5). Depending on what the de-
sign conditions are, this can be a re-
inforced connection or an unreinforced
connection. The branch connection can
be at 90 deg. or less from the longitu-
dinal pipe run.
Hygenic fabrication
Hygienic and semiconductor pipe
fabrication uses automatic autog-
enous welding in the form of orbital
welding. This is a weld without the
use of filler metal. It uses the orbital
welding TIG process. In some cases,
hand welding is required, but this is
kept to a minimum, and will gener-
ally require pre-approval.
When fabricating pipe for hygienic
services it will be necessary to com-
ply with, not only a specific method of
welding, but also an extensive amount
of documentation. Developing and
maintaining the required documenta-
tion for hygienic pipe fabrication and
installation can add an additional 30
to 40% to the piping cost of a project.
The documentation needed, from
the fabrication effort for validation,
may include, but is not limited to:
1. Incoming material examination
reports
2. Material certification:
a. MTRs
b. Certification of compliance
3. Weld-gas certification
4. Signature logs
5. WPQs (welder and welding opera
tor performance qualification)
6. Welder and welding operator
Gas nozzIe
Contact
tube
Arc
WeId
metaI
ConsumabIe
eIectrode
Gas
shieId
WeId
pooI
Parent
metaI
NozzIe
FiIIer rod
Parent pIate WeId pooI
Gas shieIding
WeId bead
Figure 4. Gas metal arc welding
(GMAW; top) uses a shielding gas to
protect the weld area from atmospheric
gases. Gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW;
center) is more exacting than GTAW, but
also more complex and slower. Shielded
metal arc welding (SMAW; bottom) is the
most common form of welding. SMAW
is performed manually, whereas GMAW
and SMAW can be either performed
manually or by an automated system
WeId metaI
EvoIved gas shieId
FIux covering
SIag
ConsumabIe
eIectrode
WeId
pooI
Core wire
Arc Parent
metaI
K
n
o
w
|
e
d
g
e

c
o
u
n
t
s
.
MI CPOF I LT PAT I ON
ULT P A F I LT P AT I ON
N A N OF I L T P AT I ON
WWW.MICPODYN-NADIP.COM
For more than 4 decades now we have been
working very successfully on the development
and production of membrane products for the
chem|ca| and pharmaceut|ca| industry. This
long-standing experience is essential for us.
lt is not only an indispensable counterpart to
our professional competence but also the key
to providing you with products of the highest
quality and maximum performance.
MlCPODYN
TECHNOLOGlES lNC
P. O. Box 98269
Paleigh, NC. 27624
Phone 001 - 919 - 341-5936
info@microdyn-nadir.com
55,6x254_baer_engl.indd 2 16.02.2007 9:35:54 Uhr
Please visit us at the Chem Show. Booth #431
4a.
4b.
4c.
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 75 9/29/07 5:42:58 PM
inspectionsummary
7.Mechanical and electropolishing
procedures
8.Examinerqualification
9.Inspectorqualification
10. Welderqualificationsummary
11. Gagecalibrationcertifications
12. Weldcontinuityreport
13. WPSs (weld procedure specifica-
tions)
14. PQRs (procedure qualification
record)
15. Weldcouponlog
16. Weldmaps
17. Slopemaps
18. Weldlogs
19. Leaktestreports
20. Inspectionreports
21. Passivationrecords
22. Detailmechanicallayouts
23. Technical specifications for com-
ponents
24. As-builtisometrics
25. OriginalIFCisometrics
26. Documentation recording any
changesfromIFCtoas-built
isometrics
The above listed documentation,
which closely parallels the list in
ASME-BPE,isthatwhichisgenerally
requiredtomoveaninstalledhygienic
system through validation, commis-
sioning and qualification (C&Q).And
this isnt all thats required.There is
additional supporting documentation
suchasP&IDs,proceduraldocuments,
andsoon,whicharealsorequired.De-
pendingonthesizeandtypeofaproj-
ectitcanbeamassiveundertaking.If
not properly set up and orchestrated,
itcanbecomealogisticalnightmare.
What you do not want to do is dis-
cover during C&Q that you are miss-
ingaportionoftherequireddocumen-
tation. Resurrecting this information
is labor intensive and can delay a
projects turnover significantly. I can-
not stress strongly enough just how
imperative it is that all necessary
documentation be identified up front.
Itneedstobeprocuredthroughoutthe
processandassimilatedinaturnover
(TO)packageinamannerthatmakes
it relatively easy to locate needed
information while also allowing the
information to be cross indexed and
traceablewithintheTOpackage.
Thetermvalidationisabroad,gener-
alized,self-definingtermthatincludes
theactofcommissioningandqualifica-
tion.Commissioningandqualification,
while they go hand in hand, are two
activities that are essentially distinct
withinthemselves. n
Acknowledgement:
TheauthorwishestothankEarlLamson,senior
projectmanagerwithEliLillyandCompany,for
beingkindenoughintakingtimeoutofabusy
scheduletoreadthroughthedraftofthisarticle.
Earl has a remarkable set of project and engi-
neering skills that set him apart from many I
haveworkedwith.ThatandthefactthatIvalue
hisopinionarethereasonsIaskedhimtoreview
thisarticle.
www.coade.com
DOWNLOAD FREE DEMO
Plant Focused.
Industry Driven.
SM
+1 281-890-4566
sales@coade.com
2
0
0
7

C
O
A
D
E
,
In
c
.
A
u
t
o
d
e
s
k
,
t
h
e

A
u
t
o
d
e
s
k

lo
g
o
,
a
n
d

A
u
t
o
C
A
D

a
r
e

r
e
g
is
t
e
r
e
d

t
r
a
d
e
m
a
r
k
s

o
f

A
u
t
o
d
e
s
k
,
In
c
.
Why is CADWorx one of the fastest
growing and most productive plant
design suites on the market?
Because it has all the tools to produce
intelligent plant designs, including:
Piping
Steel
Cable trays/ ducting
Collision detection
Equipment
Bills of material
Isometrics
Flow schematics
Instrument loop diagrams
Bi-directional links to analysis programs
Walkthrough and visualization
CADWorx delivers!
Contact us to find out how you can
improve your design efficiency.
Easy
Open
Scalable
PLANT
DESIGN
SUITE
C
A
D
W
o
r
x
Author
W. M. (Bill) Huitthasbeen
president ofW. M. Huitt Co.
MO 63131-0154. Phone: 314-966-8919; Email:
wmhuitt@aol.com) a piping consulting firm
foundedin1987.Hisexperiencecoversboththe
engineeringandconstructionfieldsandcrosses
industrial lines to include petroleum refining,
chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, pulp
& paper, nuclear power, and coal gasification.
Hehaswrittennumerousspecificationsinclud-
ingengineeringandconstructionguidelinesto
ensure that design and construction comply
with code requirements, owner expectations
and good design practices. Huitt is a member
of ISPE (International Society of Pharmaceu-
tical Engineers), CSI (Construction Specifica-
tions Institute) and ASME (American Society
of Mechanical Engineers). He is a contributor
toASME-BPEandsitsontwocorporatespeci-
ficationreviewboards.
5
I
5
C
U
D
5
I 5
S
5
S
5
C
U
D
5
I
5
C
U
D
B C D
Figure 5. Stub-in joint connections, such as the three samples shown here, are
used for welding the end of a pipe to the longitudinal run of another pipe
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 76 9/29/07 5:44:00 PM
T
his fifth in a series of articles
[14] on piping design discusses
the practical issues of installa-
tion and cleaning.
PiPe installation
The installation of pipe follows its fab-
rication and is very frequently a part
of it. The installation of pipe can be
accomplished in the following four pri-
mary ways, or combinations thereof:
1. Field fabricate and install
2. Shop fabricate and field erected
3. Skid fabrication, assembly and in-
stallation
4. Modular construction
Field fabricate and install
In the first method, the pipe is fabri-
cated onsite, either in place or in seg-
ments, at an onsite field-fabrication
area and then erected. A number of
factors will dictate whether or not it
is feasible to field fabricate, includ-
ing the following: the size and type
of the project; pipe size and material;
the facility itself; weather conditions;
availability of qualified personnel; ex-
isting building operations; cleanliness
requirements; and time available to
do the work.
Efficiency, quality and safety are
the imperatives that are factored in
when considering field fabrication.
And cost is the fallout of those factors.
Logistically speaking, if all pipe could
be fabricated onsite in a safe and ef-
ficient manner maintaining qual-
ity while doing so it would
make sense to do it in that
manner. However, before mak-
ing that final decision, lets
look at some of the pros and
cons of field fabrication:
Pros:
Only raw material (pipe, fit-
tings, valves and so on) need to be
shipped to the site location. Such
materials are much easier to handle
and store than multi-plane configu-
rations of pre-fabricated pipe
No time-consuming need to carefully
crib, tie-down and chock pre-fabri-
cated spool* pieces for transport to
the job site
Reduced risk of damage to spool
pieces
More efficient opportunity to fabri-
cate around unexpected obstacles
(structural steel, duct, cable tray,
and so on)
Fabricate-as-you-install reduces
the rework risk assumed when
pre-fabricating spools, or the cost
related to field verification prior to
shop fabrication
The field-routing installation of pipe
through an array of insufficiently
documented locations of existing pipe
and equipment, on a retrofit project,
is quite frequently more effective
than attempting to pre-fabricate pipe
based on dimensional assumptions
Cons:
Weather is arguably the biggest
deterrent. If the facility under con-
struction is not enclosed, then pro-
tection from the elements will have
to be provided
When welding has to be done in con-
ditions that are not environmentally
controlled, then pre-heating will be
required if the ambient temperature
(not the metal surface temperature)
is 0F or below
In a new facility, as opposed to hav-
ing to route piping through an
array of poorly located existing pipe
and equipment, field fabrication of
buttwelded pipe is not as efficient
and cost effective as shop fabrication
There may be concerns about safety
and efficiency when working in a
facility while it is in operation in
advance of a turnaround or to begin
advance work on a plant expansion
Generally speaking, threaded, sock-
etweld, grooved, and other propri-
etary-type joints that do not require
buttwelding are field fabricated and
installed. Buttwelding of small, 1
1/2-in. NPS and less, are very often
field fabricated and installed because
Feature Report
48 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com april 2008
engineering Practice
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
Piping Design Part 5:
Installation and
These practical guidelines for deciding
which installation procedure to follow, and for
cleaning a new pipeline system can prevent
problems from happening during startup
*Spool pieces are the pre-fabricated sections of
pipe that are fabricated and numbered in the
shop, then shipped to the job site for installa-
tion.
Cleaning
of the added risk of
damage during trans-
port, in pre-fabricated
form, from the shop to
the site.
Shop fabricate
and install
Shop fabrication refers
to, generally speaking,
any pipe, fittings and
components that are
assembled by welding
into spool assemblies
at the fabricators fa-
cility. The spools are
then labeled with an
identifier and trans-
ported to the job site
for installation.
Each spool piece
needs its own identifier
marked on the piece
itself in some fashion
that will make it easy
to know where its desti-
nation is in the facility
and where it belongs in
a multi-spool system of
pipe. This will allow the installer to ef-
ficiently stage the piece and ready it
for installation.
As part of the process of developing
spool sections, field-welded joints need
to be designated. These are welded
joints that connect the pre-fabricated
spools. In doing this the designer or
fabricator will identify two different
types of field-welded joints: field weld
(FW) and field closure weld (FCW).
FW indicates a joint in which the
end of a pipe segment is prepared for
the installer to set in place and weld to
its connecting joint without additional
modification in the field. This means
that the length of pipe that is joined
to another in the field is cut precisely
to length and the end prepared in the
shop for welding.
FCW provides the installer with an
additional length of pipe, usually 4
to 6 in. longer than what is indicated
on the design drawings, to allow for
field adjustment.
What has to be considered, and what
prompts the need for a FCW, is the ac-
tual, as-installed, location of both the
fixed equipment that the pipe assem-
blies may connect to and the actual
installed location of the pipe assembly
itself. Odds are that all equipment and
piping will not be installed exactly
where indicated on design drawings.
The dimensional location of the
equipment items given on design
drawings is not a finite location, it is
merely an intended location, as are
dinensional locations on drawings for
building steel, pipe supports and oth-
ers. What factors into the installation
of shop-fabricated pipe is the actual
location of the equipment nozzle it
will be connecting to in relation to the
pipes installed location.
In connecting to equipment there is
a build-up, or stack-up, of tolerances
that will effectively place the actual,
or final, location of the nozzle at some
point in three-dimensional space, other
than where the design drawing indi-
cates. The tolerance stack-up results
from the following circumstances:
Manufacturing tolerances in mate-
rial forming, nozzle location, and
vessel support location
The actual set-in-place location of
the vessel
Load cell installation (when appli-
cable)
The actual set-in-place pipe run-
up location
In order to allow for these inevitable
deviations between the drawing di-
mensions used to fabricate the vessel,
set the vessel and install the pipe as-
sembly and the actual installed loca-
tion of the connecting points, a field-
closure piece, or two, will be required
for that final adjustment.
The field-closure piece is a designated
section of the pipe assembly in which a
field-closure weld has been indicated.
Skid (super skid) fabrication
A skid is a pre-packaged assembly that
may contain all or some of the follow-
ing that make up an operating system:
vessels, rotating equipment, piping,
automation components, operator in-
terfaces, instrumentation, gages, elec-
trical panels, wiring and connectors,
framework, supports, inline piping
components, and insulation. A single
process or utility system may fit onto
one skid or, depending on size re-
straints, may comprise multiple skids.
After fabrication of a skid is com-
plete, it will typically go through fac-
tory-acceptance testing (FAT) at the
fabricators facility. The skid is then
shipped to the job site where it is in-
stalled in its final location. After in-
stallation it would typically go through
a follow-up site-acceptance test (SAT),
including additional hydrotesting.
This is basically a system shake-down
to determine that everything is intact,
and that those things that did not re-
main intact during transport are dis-
covered and repaired.
Logistics and the necessary skill set
required for the installation, connec-
tion and startup of a particular skid
package will dictate to what extent
the skid fabricator will be involved
after it is shipped to the job site.
Modular construction
The term module or modular construc-
tion is quite often, in this context, inter-
changed with the term skid fabrication.
A module can refer to pre-fabricated
units that actually form the structure
of a facility as each is installed. Or, the
units may be smaller sub-assemblies
that, when combined, make up a com-
plete process or utility system.
Modules also consist of all or some of
the following: vessels, rotating equip-
ment, piping, automation components,
HVAC, instrumentation, electrical wir-
ing and connectors, framework, walls,
architectural components, lighting,
supports, inline piping components,
and insulation. This, as an example,
allows a complete locker-room module
to be placed and connected to a com-
plete water-treatment module.
The smaller sub-assembly modules,
in many cases, are interchanged with
the term skid. Misconception can be
avoided when a company defines these
terms, both for internal discussion
and for the purpose of making it clear
to outside contractors, as to what is
meant when using the term module.
Installation approach
Now that we have a general idea of
the four primary approaches to piping
installations how do we decide which
is the best method, or combination of
methods, to use for a particular proj-
ect? Each project is unique with its
own particular set of decision drivers
with regard to a selected execution
approach. There are no hard and fast
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com april 2008 49
Cleaning
rules for determining a best approach.
It requires experienced personnel to
assign values to the various aspects of
project execution, overlay a timeline,
and then assess logistics. It sounds
simple, but in actuality can be a very
complex process.
Therefore, the following is a guide-
line and not a hard and fast set of rules.
There are simply too many project vari-
ables and complexities otherwise.
When considering an approach,
keep in mind that the method of in-
stallation needs to be weighed against
a contractors preferred methodology.
This does not imply that the contrac-
tors preferred methodology should
drive your decision on how to execute
a job. On the contrary, once you deter-
mine how the job needs to be executed,
then look to only those contractors
whose preferred methodology agrees
with your project execution plans.
Some contractors prefer to do most,
if not all, fabrication in the shop, oth-
ers prefer to set up at the job site,
while others are flexible enough to
utilize the best of both methods.
The three main criteria discussed
above efficiency, quality and safety
would apply here as well. Using
these three elements as a basis for
making a determination, let us look at
some common variables.
Environment: The environment is
only a factor when work has to be
done in an open-air structure or other
outdoor installation (such as tank
farm, pipeline, pipe rack or yard pip-
ing). Working in an open-air structure
will require protection from the ele-
ments (such as rain, snow, wind and
cold). In addition, there may also be a
requirement to work in elevated areas
with the use of scaffolding. All of this
can have a potential impact on safety
and efficiency.
Pipe-rack installation consists
mainly of straight runs of pipe, and
will not necessarily have a require-
ment or need for pre-fabrication.
That is, unless it is pre-fabricated as
modular-skid units. Depending on the
project, it could be cost effective on an
overall strategic basis to modularize
the pipe rack, steel and all.
The big advantage to shop fabrica-
tion is the controlled environment in
which its done. This includes the qual-
ity control aspect, better equipment
(generally speaking), a routine meth-
odology of how a piece of work pro-
gresses through the shop, and better
control, through a developed routine
of required documentation.
Industry: The various sectors of the
chemical process industries (CPI) can
be grouped into two categories: clean/
indoor build and non-clean/outdoor
build. Realizing that there will be
exceptions to this generalization, we
can include in the clean/indoor built
category: pharmaceutical, biophar-
maceutical, semiconductor and food
and dairy. Under non-clean/outdoor
build we can include: petroleum refin-
ing; bulk chemicals; pulp and paper;
off-shore; pipeline (oil and gas); and
power generation.
The clean-build philosophy comes
from the need to construct certain fa-
cilities with a more stringent control
on construction debris. Those indus-
tries included in this category often re-
quire a facility at least a portion of a
facility to be microbial and particu-
late free, as stipulated by the design.
There can be no debris, organic or
inorganic, remaining after construc-
tion in accessible or inaccessible
spaces of the facility. Of particular
concern with pharmaceutical, bio-
pharm and food-and-dairy facilities
are food waste and hidden moisture.
Food waste can entice and support ro-
dents and insects, and hidden mois-
ture can propagate mold, which can
eventually become airborne. If these
intruders are not discovered until the
facility is in operation, the impact,
upon discovery, can potentially be
devastating to production.
Such contamination can be found
in one of two ways. Discovery at the
source, possibly behind a wall or some
other out-of-the-way place, means that
not only does current production have
to cease, but product will have to be an-
alyzed for possible contamination. Once
found, it then has to be remediated.
The other method of discovery
comes from the continuous testing
and validation of the product stream.
If a contaminant is discovered in
the product, the production line is
stopped, and the problem becomes an
investigation into finding the source
of the contamination.
The clean-build philosophy, there-
fore, dictates more stringent and strict
requirements for controlling and in-
specting for debris on an ongoing basis
throughout construction and startup.
It will be necessary, on a clean-build
site, to adhere to the following rather
simple rules:
Smoking or smokeless tobacco prod-
ucts of any kind are not allowed on
the site property
Provide for offsite break and lunch
areas; no food or drink, other than
water, are allowed on the site
premises
Do not begin installing pipe, duct or
equipment until, at the very least, a
roof is installed
After roof and walls are installed,
ensure that there is no standing
water remaining in the facility
Prior to and during the construc-
tion of hollow walls, such as those
framed and dry-walled, ensure on a
daily basis that there is no moisture
or debris in the wall cavity
Duct work delivered to the job site
shall have the ends covered with a
plastic sheet material, which shall
remain on the ends until connected
in place
Fabricated pipe delivered to the job
site shall have the ends covered in a
suitable fashion with suitable ma-
terial, and the cover shall remain
on the ends until pipe is ready to be
connected in place
During and after flushing and test-
ing of pipelines, all water spills
shall be controlled to the extent
possible and shall be cleaned after
each flushing and testing or at the
end of the work day
Type of project
While the type of project is not the
main influence in determining how
you approach the execution of a proj-
ect, it does play a key role. It will help
drive the decision as to how the piping
should be fabricated and installed.
For example, if the project is a ret-
rofit, it will require much of the pipe,
regardless of size and joint connec-
tion, to be field fabricated and in-
stalled. This is due simply to the fact
that the effort and cost necessary to
verify the location of all existing pipe,
equipment, walls, columns, duct and
so on, in a somewhat precise
manner, would not be very
practical. You would be bet-
ter served by field verifying
the approximate location of
the above items with existing
drawings, for planning and
logistic purposes, then shop
or field fabricate, verify and
install as you go.
A fast track project, one that
has a compressed schedule,
will require parallel activities where
possible. Shop and skid fabrication
would be utilized as much as possible
simply to expend more man-hours
over a shorter time period while at-
tempting to maintain efficiency, even
though there may be added cost to
this approach. This approach is time
driven and not budgetary driven.
A new grassroots facility still re-
quires routing verification as you go,
but certainly not the much-more in-
volved need to locate previously in-
stalled obstructions that is necessary
when working with an existing facility.
If the project is a clean-build project
inside an environmentally controlled
area, it will be more practical to shop
fabricate or utilize skid or modular fab-
rication for most, if not all of the piping.
This will reduce the number of person-
nel and the amount of fabrication de-
bris in the facility, and provide better
control for keeping it out of the pipe
itself. With personnel, you could have
food wrappers, drink cans and bottles,
food waste, and clothing items. Fabrica-
tion debris could include metal filings,
cutting oil, pieces of pipe, weld-rod and
weld-wire remnants, and so on.
If the project is not a clean-build, but
is still inside an environmentally con-
trolled facility, the same logic does not
necessarily apply. The decision to shop
fabricate and install or to field fabri-
cate and install becomes one based
on efficiency rather than how best to
maintain a clean area. But thats not to
say that if it doesnt qualify as a clean-
build project then the construction de-
bris can just be allowed to pile up.
There is still safety and efficiency
to consider on any project, and a clean
job site is a major part of that. Main-
taining a clean job site is an integral
component of good project execution.
Keeping personnel and equipment
to a minimum at the job site is not
an absolute, but is one of the key con-
siderations to the efficiency of pipe
installation. Following that logic,
most of the buttwelded pipe should
be shop fabricated. A couple of things
to consider, when determining which
buttwelded pipe to shop fabricate, are
size and material.
Pipe material and size range
Shop-fabricated spools need to be
transported to the job site, which re-
quires handling. Handling and trans-
porting small diameter pipe and thin-
wall tubing spools create the potential
for damage to those spools.
If you are shop fabricating every-
thing and the distance from shop to
site is across town, the risk to dam-
aging small-diameter pipe spools is a
great deal less than if they have to be
shipped halfway across the U.S., Eu-
rope or Asia, or even across an ocean.
In transporting spools over long
distances, unless there is a great deal
of thought and care given to cribbing
the load of spools, it may not be ben-
eficial to transport buttwelded pipe
spools NPS 1 1/2 in. and less. It may be
more practical to fabricate these sizes
on site, unless you are fabricating hy-
gienic or semiconductor piping; these
types of systems require a great deal
more control and a cleaner fabrication,
meaning that pipe fabrication will re-
quire a clean shop area onsite, or the
pipe will need to be fabricated at an
offsite, better controlled shop facility.
A practical rule of thumb in deter-
mining what to fabricate in the shop
or in the field is provided in Table 1.
Dictates of the project and a contrac-
tors standard operating proceedures
will determine how best to define
what is shop fabricated and what is
field fabricated.
Table 1. Shop verSuS field fabricaTion
Size (in.) Material Joint Shop or field
1 Pipe 1, 2, 3, 6 Field
1 Pipe 4 & 5 Shop
2 Pipe 3 & 6 Field
2 Pipe 4 & 5 Shop
1 Tubing 5 Field
1 Tubing 5 Shop (a, b)
1 Tubing 5 Shop
Joint Type:
1 = Socketweld
2 = Threaded
3 = Grooved Fully (Grooved fittings and pipe ends.)
4 = Grooved Partially (Shop-welded spools with grooved
ends.)
5 = Buttweld
6 = Flanged Lined or unlined Pipe
Notes:
a. Hygienic tubing
b. Special cribbing and support for transport
Petroleum-refining and bulk-chem-
ical projects are generally open-air
projects in which field fabrication
and installation of pipe are exposed
to the elements. While a clean build
is not a requirement on these types
of projects efficiency and, above all,
safety are. Because of this, it would
make sense to utilize shop fabrication
as much as possible.
Fabricating pipe spools under better-
controlled shop conditions will provide
improved efficiency and safer-per-hour
working conditions over what you will
generally find in the field. This trans-
lates into fewer accidents.
Referring back to Table 1, with
respect to the potential for damage
during transport, pipe sizes NPS 23
in. and larger ship much better than
smaller pipe sizes, particularly when
working with thin-wall tubing.
Location
Job-site location is one of the key
markers in determining shop or field
fabrication. In many cases, building a
facility in a remote location will be a
driver for utilizing a disproportionate
amount of skid or module fabrication
disproportionate in the sense that
project management may look at modu-
larizing the entire job, rather than mo-
bilize the staffing and facilities needed
to fabricate and install on or near the
job site. This would constitute a larger
amount of modularization over what
might normally be expected for the
same type project in a more metropoli-
tan region, or an area with reasonable
access to needed resources.
To expand on that thought; it was
pointed out to me by Earl Lamson,
senior project manager with Eli Lilly
and Co., that project resources, even
in metropolitan areas, are quite fre-
quently siloed around a specific in-
dustry segment. In certain regions of
the U.S. for example, you may discover
that there is an abundance of crafts-
man available when building a refin-
ery, but that same region may have
difficulty, from a trained and experi-
enced personnel perspective, in sup-
porting the construction of a semicon-
ductor facility.
Consequently when building a phar-
maceutical facility in another region
you may find a sufficient population
of trained and expe-
rienced craftsman for
that industry, but may
not find resources ad-
equate when building
a chemical plant.
Building a project in
a remote location re-
quires the project team
to rethink the job-as-
usual methodology. From a logistics
standpoint, mobilization of personnel
and material become a major factor
in determining the overall execution
of such a project. Project planning is
a big component in project execution,
but is more so when attempting to
build in remote areas. And this doesnt
even touch on the security aspect.
Nowadays, when constructing in
any number of remote areas, security
is a real concern that requires real
consideration and real resolution. Re-
duced onsite staffing is a good counter
measure in reducing risk to personnel
when building in remote or even non-
remote third-world areas.
PiPe sYsteM CleaninG
While there are requirements in
ASME for leak testing, cleaning re-
quirements do not exist. ASTM A 380
and 967 has standards on cleaning,
descaling and passivation, but there
is nothing in ASTM on simply flush-
ing and general cleaning. Defining the
requirements for the internal cleaning
of piping systems falls within the re-
sponsibilities of the owner.
The term cleaning, in this context,
is a catch-all term that also includes
flushing, chemical cleaning, and pas-
sivation. So before we go further, let
me provide some definition for these
terms as they apply in this context, be-
cause these terms are somewhat flex-
ible in their meaning, depending on
source and context, and could be used
to describe activities other than what
is intended here.
Definitions
Cleaning: This is a process by which
water, solvents, acids or proprietary
cleaning solutions are flushed through
a piping system to remove contami-
nants such as cutting oils, metal fil-
ings, weld spatter, dirt and other un-
wanted debris.
Flushing. This is a process by which
water, air or an inert gas is forced
through a piping system either in
preparation for chemical cleaning or
as the only cleaning process. Flushing
can be accomplished by using dynamic
pressure head or released static pres-
sure head, as in a fill-and-dump proce-
dure. Blow-down can be considered as
flushing with a gas.
Passivation. In this process, a chemi-
cal solution, usually with a base of
nitric, phosphoric, citric acid or other
mild oxidant, is used to promote or ac-
celerate the formation of a thin (2550
), protective oxide layer (a passive
layer) on the internal surfaces of pipe,
fittings and equipment. In stainless
steels the most commonly used alloy
at present passivation removes any
free iron from the pipe surface to form
a chromium-rich oxide layer to protect
the metal surface from aggressive liq-
uids such as high-purity waters.
Note that the terms cleaning and
flushing can be interchanged when
the process only requires water, air or
an inert gas to meet the required level
of cleanliness. When the term clean-
ing is used in this context it may infer
what is defined as flushing.
Cleaning and testing
With regard to cleaning and leak test-
ing, and which to do first, there are
drivers for both and different schools
of thought on the overall process. Each
contractor will have its preference. It
is in the owners best interest to deter-
mine its preference or be at risk in just
leaving it to the contractor. In either
case you should have a line of thought
on the process, if for no other reason
than to be able to understand what
the contractor is proposing to do.
At the very least, in advance of leak
testing, perform either a basic flush of
a test circuit, or perform an internal
visual examination as the pipe is in-
Table 2. General cleaninG ScenarioS
category description
C-1 Flush only (water, air or inert gas)
C-2 Flush, clean with cleaning solution, flush
C-3 Clean with cleaning solution, flush
C-4 Flush, clean, passivate, flush
Table 3. General leak TeSTinG ScenarioS
category description
T-1 Initial service leak test
T-2 Hydrostatic leak test
T-3 Pneumatic leak test
T-4 Sensitive leak test
T-5 Alternative leak test
stalled. A walk-down of the test circuit
should be done just prior to filling the
system with any liquid. The last thing
you want to happen is to discover too
late that a joint wasnt fully connected
or an inline component was taken out
of the pipeline. In a facility that is not
a clean-build, it can simply be a mess
that has to be cleaned. In a clean-build
facility, an incident such as this can
potentially be costly and time consum-
ing to remediate.
Tables 2 and 3 list general clean-
ing and testing procedures along with
easy-to-use indicators.
Since this article is concerned with
new pipe installations, we will not in-
clude steam-out cleaning or pipeline
pigging in our discussion. These are
cleaning procedures that are used on
in-service piping to clean the fluid ser-
vice residue buildup from interior pipe
walls after a period of use.
Before subjecting the system to an
internal test pressure, you should first
perform a walk down of the piping to
make certain, as mentioned earlier,
that there are no missing or loose com-
ponents. The system is then flushed
with water or air to make sure that
there are no obstacles in the piping.
Over the years, we have discovered
everything from soda cans to shop
towels, work gloves, nuts and bolts,
weld rod, Styrofoam cups, candy wrap-
pers, and other miscellaneous debris,
including dirt and rocks in installed
piping systems.
After an initial flush, which could
also be the only flush and cleaning re-
quired, the system is ready for chemi-
cal cleaning or leak testing. In large
systems, it may be beneficial to leak
test smaller test circuits and then per-
form a final cleaning once the entire
system is installed and tested. This
would include a final completed sys-
tem leak test that would test all of the
joints that connect the test circuits.
That is, unless these joints were tested
as the assembly progressed.
On large systems, if it is decided
to leak test smaller segments, or test
circuits as they are installed (prior to
flushing the entire system), the piping
needs to be examined internally as
it is installed. This is to prevent any
large-debris items from remaining in
the piping during the test.
Now that we have
touched on generali-
ties, lets take a look
at each of the clean-
ing categories listed in
Table 2 and see how to
apply them.
Cleaning Category
C-1: This is simply a
flush with water, air
or inert gas. The one non-manual
assist that water requires in order
for it to clean the inside of a piping
system is velocity. But what velocity
is necessary?
The main concept behind flushing
a pipeline is to dislodge and remove
suspected debris. In order to dislodge,
suspend and remove this unwanted
material in the piping system, it is
necessary that water or air be forced
through the piping system at a veloc-
ity sufficient to suspend the heaviest
suspected particles and move them
along the pipeline.
The velocity required to suspend
the particles and move them along
the pipeline for removal is dependent
upon their size and weight, and the
flush medium. Metal filings, arguably
the heaviest particles normally found
in newly fabricated pipe, will have a
terminal mid-range settling veloc-
ity, in water, of approximately 10 ft/s.
Therefore, a flushing velocity of ap-
proximately 10 ft/s should be achieved
during the flush. (This does not apply
to acid cleaning.) Table 4 indicates the
rate of flow required to achieve ap-
proximately 10 ft/s of velocity through
various sizes and schedules of pipe.
Purging a piping system clear of de-
bris with air requires a velocity of ap-
proximately 25 ft/s. Table 5 indicates
the air flowrate required to achieve ap-
proximately 25 ft/s of velocity through
various sizes and schedules of pipe.
One thing you might notice is that
the size range only extends to 4-in.
NPS for both the liquid flush and for
the air or gas blow-down. The reason
for that is the volume of liquid or gas
required to achieve the necessary ve-
locity through the larger pipe sizes is
quite significant.
For example, a 6-in. NPS pipeline
would require approximately 900
to 1,000 gal/min, depending on wall
thickness of the pipe, to achieve a ve-
locity of 10 ft/s. This gets a little cum-
bersome and costly unless you have
pumps or compressors in place that
can achieve the necessary flowrate.
The alternative for liquid flushing
the larger pipe sizes other than using
source line pressure or a pump is to
perform a fill-and-dump. In this pro-
cess, the pipe system is completely
filled with liquid and then drained
through a full-line-size, quick-open-
ing valve. In doing this, there has to
be enough static head to generate suf-
ficient force and velocity to achieve
essentially the same result as the
pumped or line pressure liquid.
Cleaning Category C-2: This is a
three-step process by which the piping
system is initially flushed out with a
liquid to remove most of the loose de-
bris. This is followed by the circulation
of a cleaning solution, which is then
followed by a final flush of water.
Cleaning solutions are, in many
cases, proprietary detergent or acid-
based solutions each blended for spe-
cific uses. Detergent-based solutions
are generally used for removing dirt,
cutting oils and grease. Acid-based so-
lutions are used to remove the same
contaminants as the detergent-base
plus weld discoloration and residue.
The acid-based solution also passiv-
ates the pipe wall.
As defined earlier, passivation
provides a protective oxide barrier
against corrosion. The acids used in
some cleaning solutions for ferrous
and copper materials leave behind a
passivated interior pipe surface as a
result of the cleaning process. In util-
ity water services, such as tower and
chilled water, this barrier against cor-
rosion is maintained with corrosion
inhibitors that are injected into the
fluid stream on an ongoing basis.
Keep in mind that the formation of
passivated surfaces is a natural occur-
rence with metals in an oxygen envi-
Table 4. raTe of fluShinG liquid (Gal/
Min) needed To MainTain a velociTy of
approxiMaTely 10 fT/S
pipe
Sch.
pipe size (in.)
1 1 2 3 4
5S 12 20 34 77 123 272 460
40 10 16 27 64 105 230 397
80 7 13 22 55 92
ronment; the acid merely initiates and
speeds up the process.
When using stainless alloys usu-
ally 316L, in hygienic-water services
such as water for injection (WFI), pu-
rified water, deionized (DI) water and
in some cases soft water passiv-
ation is a final step in the preparation
for service of these pipelines.
Passivation is also a periodic ongo-
ing preventative-maintenance pro-
cedure. High-purity water is very
corrosive and attacks any free iron
found on the surface of stainless-steel
pipe. Free iron has a tendency to come
out of solution when material is cold
worked, as in bending or forming pipe
without the benefit of heat. It also oc-
curs with the threading of alloy bolts,
which are solution annealed (heat
treated) after threading. Passivation
removes this free iron while also ac-
celerating, in the presence of O
2
, the
oxidation rate of the stainless steel,
providing a chromium-rich, oxide cor-
rosion barrier as defined above.
Over time (and this is one hypothet-
ical thought on the subject), this very
thin corrosion barrier tends to get
depleted or worn off, particularly at
high impingement areas of the piping
system, such as elbows, tees and pump
casings. Once the passive layer wears
through, any free iron exposed to the
high purity water will oxidize, or rust.
This will show up as surface rouge.
Rouging is an unwanted surface dis-
coloration that is periodically removed
by means of a derouging process. This
is an operational, as-needed chemical-
cleaning process that will remove all
or most of the rouge and also re-pas-
sivate the internal pipe surface.
Discussions and research on the topic
of rouging continue. This is a subject
that has more questions than answers
at the present time. Currently, the
ASME-BPE is looking into this issue.
One of the questions to be answered is
whether or not rouge is actually detri-
mental to product streams.
two-step cleaning process that uses
a detergent- or acid-based solution
to clean the pipe interior of any un-
wanted residue or debris. This is then
followed by a final flush of water.
three- or four-step process generally
info.dsmpharmaceuticals@dsm.com 973.257.8011
Well take you there.
API Manufacturing | Clinical Manufacturing | Dosage Form Manufacturing | Scale Up
VISIT US AT
BIO
SAN DIEGO JUNE 17 20
Booth #218
www.dsmpharmaceuticals.com
BLEED SIZE 5.25 X 11
CHEM ENGINEERING
used in hygienic service piping. In
most cases, simply due to the clean
fabrication approach used in hygienic
pipe fabrication, only a water flush
with deionized- (DI) quality water, or
better, would be necessary for cleaning
,followed by passivation of the piping
system, then a final flush of water.
There are variations to each of these
primary cleaning functions and it
would be in an owners best interest to
define these requirements, by fluid ser-
vice, in advance of the work to be done.
Cleaning procedures
This section describes some fundamen-
tal cleaning procedures as they might
appear in a specification or guideline
and includes the leak-test procedures
that will follow in Part 6. This will give
you some idea as to what you might
consider developing for your own set
of specifications. Assuming that if your
company repeatedly executes projects
you will have cleaning and testing
guidelines, in some form, prepared for
your contractor. If not, you may not get
what you expect. Its better to give some
forethought to these activities rather
than be surprised at the results.
Once a menu of these cleaning and
testing procedures are developed, using
pre-assigned symbols, similar to those
given in the following, they can then be
specified in the line list with the respec-
tive fluid services as you require. In
this manner, there is no second guess-
ing during construction. Each piping
circuit is assigned a specific clean and
test protocol in advance.
Many pre-developed procedures I
have seen over the years, those de-
veloped by owners in particular, have
been very simplistic, and typically out
of date. This is an indicator to most con-
tractors that the owners representative
will most likely not attempt to enforce
them. The contractor, in making that
assumption, may simply ignore them
and perform their own procedures.
Your procedural guidelines should
be explicit and current to ensure that
the contractors know that someone
has given some thought to how he or
she wants that work accomplished,
making it far more likely that the con-
tractors will execute your procedure
instead of their own.
It is certainly acceptable to accom-
modate suggestions to a procedure
from a contractor when they dont
compromise the intent of the owners
requirements and are likely to im-
prove the efficiency of the contractor.
If a submitted alternate procedure
does not compromise the intent of the
owner, it is recommended that it be
accepted. This will allow the owner
to see if that efficiency is really there.
With that in mind, lets create a couple
of general cleaning procedures.
A general practice in the flushing
and cleaning process (also indicated
in leak testing), is the evacuation of
air when using liquids. Always pro-
vide high-point vents for evacuating
air during the fill cycle and low point
drains for clearing out all of the liquid
when the process is complete.
Using the same terminology in
Table 2 these cleaning procedures will
be categorized as follows:
Category C-1: Flush or blowdown
only (water, air or inert gas)
C-1.1 These systems shall be
flushed with the fluid that the sys-
tem is intended for. There shall be
no hydrostatic or pneumatic leak
test. An initial-service leak test will
be performed.
a. Connect system to its permanent
supply line. Include a permanent
block valve at the supply line con-
nection. All outlets shall have tem-
porary hoses run to drain. Do not
flush through coils, plates, strainers
or filter elements.
b. Using supply line pressure, flush
system through all outlets until
water is clear and free of any debris
at all outlet points. Flush a quantity
of fluid through each branch not less
than three times that contained in
the system. Use Table 6 to estimate
volume of liquid in the system.
c. These systems are required only to
undergo an initial-service leak test.
During the flushing procedure, and
as the system is placed into service,
all joints shall be checked for leaks.
d. Any leaks discovered during the flush-
ing process, or during the process of
placing the system into service, will
require the system to be drained and
repaired. After which the process will
start over with Step 2.
C-1.2 These systems shall be
flushed clean with potable water.
a. Connect a flush/test manifold at a
designated inlet to the system, and
a temporary hose or pipe on the des-
ignated outlet(s) of the system.
b. Route temporary hose or pipe from
potable water supply, approved by
owner, and connect to flush/test
manifold. Route outlet hose or pipe
to sewer, or as directed by owner
represenative. Secure end of outlet.
c. Using a once through procedure
(not a re-circulation), and the rate
of flow in Table 4, perform an ini-
tial flush through the system with
a quantity of potable water not less
volume of liquid in the system. Dis-
charge to sewer, or as directed by
owner representative.
d. After the initial flush, insert a coni-
cal strainer into a spool piece located
between the discharge of the piping
system and the outlet hose. Perform
a second flush with a volume of po-
table water not less than that con-
tained in the system.
e. After the second flush (Step d), pull
the strainer and check for debris; if
debris is found repeat Step c. If no
debris is found the system is ready
for leak testing.
Category C2: Flush then clean with
cleaning solution, followed by a neu-
tralization rinse. Because of the thor-
oughness of the flush, clean and rinse
process there should be no need to
Table 5. raTe of air flow (fT
3
/S) To MainTain a velociTy of
approxiMaTely 25 fT/S
pipe
Sch.
pipe Sizes (in.)
1 1 2 3 4
Press.
15
psig
5S 0.14 0.23 0.39 0.86 1.39 3.06 5.17
40 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.71 1.18 2.59 4.47
80 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.62 1.04 2.32 4.03
Press.
50
psig
5S 0.30 0.51 0.84 1.88 3.02 6.67 11.3
40 0.23 0.41 0.66 1.56 2.56 5.65 9.73
80 0.18 0.33 0.55 1.35 2.26 5.05 8.79
check for transient debris, only for
neutralization. However, if circum-
stances dictate otherwise, then a final
check for debris may be warranted.
C-2.1 These systems shall be pre-
flushed with potable water, cleaned
with (indicate cleaning agent) then a
rinse/neutralization followed by leak
testing with potable water. If it is
determined that the system will be
installed and tested progressively in
segments, the sequence of cleaning
and testing can be altered to follow the
segmented installation, thereby leak
testing segments of a piping system
as they are installed without clean-
ing. The entire system would then be
cleaned once installed and tested.
a. Hook up flush/test manifold at a des-
ignated temporary inlet to the sys-
tem between the circulating pump
discharge and the system inlet. In-
stall a temporary hose or pipe on the
designated outlet(s) of the system.
b. Route temporary hose or pipe from
potable water supply, approved by
owner, and connect to flush/test
manifold. Route outlet hose or pipe
to sewer, or as directed by owners
representative.
c. Close valve between the circulating
pump (if no valve is included in the
system design, insert a line-blind or
install a blind flange with a drain
valve) discharge and flush/test rig.
Open valve between flush/test man-
ifold and piping system.
d. Using the once-through procedure
(meaning the cleaning fluid is not
re-circulated), and the rate of flow
in Table 4, perform an initial flush
through the system, bypassing the
circulation pump, with a quantity
of potable water equal to not less
volume of liquid in the system.
(Note: During the water flush, check
the system for leaks. Verify no leaks
prior to introducing chemical cleaning
solution to the piping system.)
e. Discharge to sewer, or as directed by
owners representative.
f. After completing the initial flush,
drain remaining water in the sys-
tem. Or, retain water if cleaning
chemicals will be added to the circu-
lating water.
g. Configure valves and hoses to cir-
culate through pump. Connect head
tank, or other source containing
cleaning agent, to connection pro-
vided on circulation loop.
h. Fill the system with the pre-mea-
sured (indicate preferred clean-
ing agent and mixing ratio or per-
centage by volume) and circulate
through the system for 48 h. To
minimize corrosion, if anticipated,
circulate cleaning agent at a low-
velocity rate prescribed by the
cleaning-agent manufacturer.
i. Drain cleaning agent to sewer or
containment, as directed by owner.
j. Reconnect, as in Step a, for the once
through flush/neutralization, and
flush system with potable water
using a quantity not less than three
times that of the system volume.
Since the (name cleaning agent) so-
lution has a neutral pH, the rinse
water will have to be visually ex-
amined for clarity. Rinse until clear.
The rinse must be started as quickly
after the cleaning cycle as possible.
If cleaning residue is allowed to dry
on the interior pipe wall, it will be
more difficult to remove by simply
flushing. The final rinse and neu-
tralization must be accomplished
before any possible residue has
time to dry.
k. Test pH for neutralization. Once
neutralization is achieved proceed
to Step l.
l. Remove pump and temporary circu-
lation loop, then configure the system
for leak testing. This may include re-
moval of some components, insertion
of line-blinds, installation of tempo-
rary spools pieces and so on.
These three examples should pro-
vide an idea as to the kind of dialog
that needs to be created in providing
guidance and direction to the contrac-
tor responsible for the work. And, as
stated earlier, these procedures, for
the most part, are flexible enough
to accommodate suggested modifica-
tions from the contractor.
Acknowledgement
The authors deep appreciation again
goes to Earl Lamson, senior project
manager with Eli Lilly and Co., for
taking the time to review these arti-
cles. His comments help make this ar-
ticle, and the others, better documents
than they otherwise would have been.
He obliged me by applying the same
skill, intelligence and insight he brings
to everything he does. His comments
kept me concise and on target.
References
1. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: The Ba-
sics, Chem. Eng. February 2007, pp. 4247.
2. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Flanges,
Chem. Eng. March 2007, pp. 5661.
3. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Design
Elements, Chem. Eng. July 2007, pp. 5057.
4. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Codes
and Fabrication, Chem. Eng. February 2007,
pp. 6876.
Table 6. voluMe of waTer (Gal) per lineal fooT of pipe
pipe Sizes (in.)
Sch. 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24
5S .021 .035 .058 .129 .207 .455 .771 1.68
20 2.71 4.31 6.16 7.34 9.70 12.4 15.2 22.2
40 .016 .028 .045 .106 .176 .386 .664 1.51 2.61 4.11 5.84 9.22 9.22 14.5 14.5
80 .012 .023 .037 .093 .154 .345 .60 1.36
Author
M. Huitt Co. (P.O. Box 31154,
St. Louis, MO 63131-0154.
Phone: 314-966-8919; Email: wmhuitt@aol.
com) a piping consulting firm founded in 1987.
owner expectations and good design practices.
tributor to ASME-BPE and sits on two corporate
specification review boards.
T
his sixth and final part of a series
of articles [15] on piping for pro-
cess plants discusses practical is-
sues of leak testing and verifica-
tion of piping systems.
Leak testing
Leak testing and pressure testing are
often used synonymously. However,
pressure testing is a misnomer when
referring to leak testing of piping sys-
tems. By definition, a pressure test is
the procedure performed on a relief
valve to test its set-point pressure.
The intent, when pressure testing a
relief valve, is not to check for leaks,
but to test the pressure set point of the
valve by gradually adding pressure to
the relief valve until it lifts the valve
off of the seat.
A leak test, on the other hand, is
performed to check the sealing integ-
rity of a piping system by applying
internal pressure to a pre-determined
limit, based on design conditions, then
checking joints and component seals
for leaks. It is not intended that the
MAWP (maximum allowable working
pressure) of a piping system be veri-
fied or validated.
Before discussing the various types
of leak tests and leak-test procedures
I would like to briefly talk about con-
trolling and tracking this activity.
Testing, like many aspects of a project,
should be a controlled process. There
should be a formal method of docu-
menting and tracking this activity as
the contractor proceeds through the
leak testing process.
Documentation
In documenting the leak testing activ-
ity there are certain forms that will be
needed. They consist of the following:
1. A dedicated set of piping and in-
strumentation diagrams (P&IDs) to
identify the limits and number the
test circuits
2. A form to record components that
were either installed or removed
prior to testing
3. A checklist form for field supervi-
sion to ensure that each step of the
test process is accomplished
4. Leak-test data forms
The two sets of documents, from
those listed above, that need to be
retained are the P&IDs and the leak-
test data forms. The other two sets of
forms are procedural checklists.
The leak-test data forms should con-
tain key data such as the following:
1. Test circuit number
2. P&ID number(s)
3. Date of test
4. Project name or number, or both
5. Location within facility
6. Line number(s)
7. Design pressure
8. Test pressure
9. Test fluid
10. Test fluid temperature
11. Time (military) recorded test begins
12. Pressure at start of test
13. Time (military) recorded test ends
14. Pressure at end of test
15. Total elapsed time of test
16. Total pressure differential (plus or
minus) from the beginning to the
end of test period
17. Comment section (indicate if leaks
were found and system was repaired
and retested or if system passed)
18. Signatures and dates
Also make certain that
the testing contractor has
current calibration logs of
his or her test instruments,
such as pressure gages.
Primary leak tests
ASME B31.3 defines five pri-
mary leak tests as follows:
Initial service leak test. This applies
only to those fluid services meeting the
criteria as defined under ASME B31.3
Category D fluid service. This includes
fluids in which the following apply:
The fluid handled is nonflamma-
ble, nontoxic, and not damaging to
human tissue
The design gage pressure does not
exceed 1,035 kPa (150 psi)
The design temperature is from
29C (20F) through 186C (366F)
The initial service leak test is a pro-
cess by which the test fluid is the fluid
that is to be used in the intended pip-
ing system at operating pressure and
temperature. It is accomplished by
connecting to the fluid source with a
valved connection and then gradually
opening the source valve and filling
the system. In liquid systems, air is
purged during the fill cycle through
high point vents. A rolling examination
of all joints is continually performed
during the fill cycle and for a period
of time after the system is completely
filled and is under line pressure.
In a situation in which the pipeline
that is being tested has distribution
on multiple floors of a facility, there
will be pressure differentials between
the floors due to static head differ-
ences. This will occur in operation
Feature Report
48 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008
Proper documentation, determination of the fluid service category
and operating conditions are among the factors necessary
to perform the correct leak test on a piping system
Piping for Process Plants Part 6:
Testing & Verification
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
and is acceptable under initial ser-
vice test conditions.
The test pressure achieved for ini-
tial service testing is what it will be
in operation. The only difference is
that the flowing fluid during opera-
tion will incur an amount of pressure
drop that will not be present during
the static test.
Hydrostatic leak test. This is the
most commonly used leak test and is
performed by using a liquid, normally
water, and in some cases with addi-
tives to prevent freezing, under a pres-
sure calculated by Equation (1):
(1)
P
P S
S
T
T
=
1 5 .
where
P
T
= Test pressure, psi
P = Internal design gage pressure,
psig
S
T
= Stress value at test temperature,
psi (see ASME B31.3, Table A-1)
S = Stress value at design tempera-
ture, psi (see B31.1, Table A-1)
However, as long as the metal tem-
perature of S
T
remains below the
temperature at which the allowable
stress value for S
T
begins to dimin-
ish and the allowable stress value of
S and S
T
are equal, then S
T
and S
cancel each other leaving the simpler
Equation (2):
P P
T
= 1 5 .
(2)
Unlike initial service test-
ing, pressure variations due to
static head differences in eleva-
tion have to be accommodated in
hydrostatic testing. That means
the calculated test pressure is
the minimum pressure required
for the system. When hydrostati-
cally testing a multi-floor system,
the minimum calculated test
pressure shall be realized at the
highest point. This is not stated,
but is inferred in B31.3.
Pneumatic leak test. This test
is performed using air or a pre-
ferred inert gas. This is a rela-
tively easy test to perform simply
from a preparation and cleanup
standpoint. However, this test has
a hazardous potential because of
the stored energy in the pressur-
ized gas. And for that reason alone
it should be used very selectively.
When pneumatic testing is per-
formed, it must be done under a
strictly controlled procedure with on-
site supervision in addition to coordi-
nation with all other crafts and per-
sonnel in the test area.
The test pressure for pneumatic
leak testing under B31.3 is calculated
using Equation (3), for B31.9 it is cal-
culated using Equation (4), and for
B31.1 it is calculated using Equation
(5).
P P
T
= 1 1 .
(3)
P P
T
= 1 4 .
(4)
P P P
T
= 1 2 1 5 . . to
(5)
One misconception with pneumatic
leak testing is in its procedure, as de-
scribed in B31.3. There is a misconcep-
tion that the test pressure should be
maintained while the joints are ex-
amined. This is not correct. As B31.3
explains, pressure is increased gradu-
ally until the test pressure is reached.
At that point, the test pressure is held
until piping strains equalize through-
out the system.
After a sufficient amount of time is
allowed for piping strains to equalize,
the pressure is then reduced to the
design pressure (see Reference [3] for
a discussion of the design pressure).
While design pressure is held, all
joints are examined for leaks. It is not
required that the examination take
place while holding test pressure.
There is more to the entire proce-
dure that is not included here. Please
refer to B31.3 or B31.1 for full details
on pneumatic leak testing.
Sensitive leak test. This leak test
is performed when there is a higher-
than-normal potential for fluid leak-
age, such as for hydrogen. I also recom-
mend its use when a fluid is classified
as a Category M fluid service. B31.1
refers to this test as Mass-Spectrom-
eter and Halide Testing.
In B31.3, the process for sensitive
leak testing is as follows:
The test shall be in accordance with
the gas and bubble test method speci-
fied in the BPV Code, Section V, Article
10, or by another method demonstrated
to have equal sensitivity. Sensitivity of
the test shall be not less than 10
3
atm
.
mL/s under test conditions.
a. The test pressure shall be at least the
lesser of 105 kPa (15 psi) gage, or 25%
[of] the design pressure.
b. The pressure shall be gradually in-
creased until a gage pressure the lesser
of one-half the test pressure or 170 kPa
(25 psi) gage is attained, at which time
a preliminary check shall be made.
Then the pressure shall be gradually
increased in steps until the test pres-
sure is reached, the pressure being
held long enough at each step to equal-
ize piping strains.
In testing fluid services that are
extremely difficult to seal against, or
fluid services classified as a Category
M fluid service, I would suggest the
following in preparation for the pro-
cess described under B31.3:
Prior to performing the sensitive
leak test, perform a low-pressure
test (15 psig) with air or an inert gas
using the bubble test method. Check
every mechanical joint for leakage
After completing the preliminary
low-pressure pneumatic test, purge
all of the gas from the system using
helium. Once the system is thor-
oughly purged, and contains no less
than 98% He, continue using He to
perform the sensitive leak test with
a mass spectrometer tuned to He.
Helium is the trace gas used in this
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008 49
process and has a size that is close to
that of the hydrogen molecule; this
makes it nearly as difficult to seal
against as H
2
without the volatility.
Test each mechanical joint using the
mass spectrometer to determine leak
rate, if any.
Alternative leak test. In lieu of per-
forming an actual leak test, in which
internal pressure is used, the alterna-
tive leak test takes the examination
and flexibility analysis approach.
This test is conducted only when it
is determined that either hydrostatic
or pneumatic testing would be det-
rimental to the piping system or the
fluid intended for the piping system,
an inherent risk to personnel, or im-
practical to achieve.
As an alternative to testing with
internal pressure, it is acceptable to
qualify a system through examination
and flexibility analysis. The process
calls for the examination of all groove
welds, and includes longitudinal welds
used in the manufacture of pipe and
fittings that have not been previously
tested hydrostatically or pneumati-
cally. It requires a 100% radiograph or
ultrasonic examination of those welds.
Where applicable, the sensitive leak
test shall be used on any untested me-
chanical joints. This alternative leak
test also requires a flexibility analysis
as applicable.
Very briefly, a flexibility analysis
verifies, on a theoretical basis, that an
installed piping system is within the
allowable stress range of the material
and components under design con-
ditions if a system: (a) duplicates or
replaces without significant change,
a system operating with a successful
service record; (b) can be judged ad-
equate by comparison with previously
analyzed systems; and (c) is of uni-
form size, has no more than two points
of fixation, no intermediate restraints,
and falls within the limitations of em-
pirical Equation (6).
(6)
D y
L U
K
( )

2 1
where
D = Outer dia. of pipe, in. (or mm)
y = Resultant of total displacement
strains to be absorbed by piping
system, in. (or mm)
L = Developed length of piping be-
tween anchors, in. (or mm)
U = Anchor distance, straight line
between anchors, ft (or m)
K
1
= 208,000 S
A
/E
a
, (mm/m)
2
= 30 S
A
/E
a
, (in./ft)
2
S
A
= Allowable displacement stress
range per Equation (1a) of
ASME B31.3, ksi (MPa)
E
a
= Reference modulus of elasticity
at 70F (21C), ksi (MPa)
One example in which an alternative
leak test might be used is in making
a branch tie-in to an existing, in-ser-
vice line using a saddle with an o-let
branch fitting with a weld-neck flange
welded to that, and a valve mounted
to the flange. Within temperature
limitations, the fillet weld used to
weld the saddle to the existing pipe
can be examined using the dye pen-
etrant or magnetic particle method.
The circumferential butt or groove
weld used in welding the weld neck
and the o-let fitting together should
be radiographically or ultrasonically
examined. And the flange joint con-
necting the valve should have the
torque of each bolt checked after visu-
ally ensuring correct type and place-
ment of the gasket.
There are circumstances, regarding
the tie-in scenario we just discussed
for alternative leak testing, in which
a hydrostatic or pneumatic test can
be used. It depends on what the fluid
service is in the existing pipeline. If
it is a fluid service that can be con-
sidered a Category D, then it is quite
possible that a hydrostatic or pneu-
matic leak test can be performed on
the described tie-in.
By capping the valve with a blind
flange modified to include a test rig of
valves, nipples and hose connectors,
you can perform a leak test rather
than an alternative leak test. As men-
tioned, this does depend on the exist-
ing service fluid. If the existing fluid
service is steam or a cryogenic fluid,
then you might want to consider the
alternative leak test.
More on documentation
As seen in Equations (15), the leak
test pressure, except for initial service
testing, is based on design pressure
and design temperature, both of which
are described in Reference [3]. A few
general procedures for cleaning and
testing are presented below.
As in all other project functions,
control and documentation is a key
element in the cleaning and testing
of piping systems. It does, however,
need to be handled in a manner that
is dictated by the type of project.
That means you dont want to bury
yourself in unwarranted paperwork
and place an unnecessary burden on
the contractor.
Building a commercial or institu-
tional type facility will not require
the same level of documentation and
stringent controls that an industrial
type facility would require. But even
within the industrial sector there are
varying degrees of required testing
and documentation.
To begin with, documentation re-
quirements in industry standards are
simplistic and somewhat generalized,
as is apparent in ASME B31.3, which
states in Para. 345.2.7:
Records shall be made of each piping
system during the testing, including:
(a) Date of test
(b) Identification of piping system
tested
(c) Test fluid
(d) Test pressure
(e) Certification of results by examiner
These records need not be retained after
completion of the test if a certification
by the inspector that the piping has
satisfactorily passed pressure testing
as required by this Code is retained.
ASME B31.3 goes on to state, in
Para. 346.3:
Unless otherwise specified by the
engineering design, the following re-
cords shall be retained for at least 5
years after the record is generated for
the project:
(a) Examination procedures; and
(b) Examination personnel qualifica-
tions
Standards that cover such a broad
array of industrial manufacturing, do
not, as a rule, attempt to get too spe-
cific in some of their requirements. Be-
yond the essential requirements, such
as those indicated above, the owner,
engineer or contractor has to assume
responsibility and know-how for pro-
viding more specific and proprietary
requirements for a particular project
specific to the particular needs of the
owner. The following will help, to some
extent, fill that gap.
Which fluid service category?
While Category-D fluid services
qualify for initial service leak testing,
there are caveats that should be con-
sidered. This is a situation in which
ASME provides some flexibility in
testing by lowering the bar on require-
ments where there is reduced risk in
failure, provided that if failure should
occur, the results would not cause
catastrophic damage to property or ir-
reparable harm to personnel.
The owners responsibility for any
fluid service selected for initial ser-
vice leak testing lies in determining
what fluid services to place into each
of the fluid service categories: Nor-
mal, Category D, Category M, and
High Pressure.
Acids, caustics, volatile chemicals
and petroleum products are usually
easy to identify as those not quali-
fying as a Category-D fluid service.
Cooling tower water, chilled water, air
and nitrogen are all easy to identify
as qualifyiers for Category-D fluid
services. The fluid services that fall
within the acceptable Category D
guidelines, but still have the poten-
tial for being hazardous to personnel
are not so straight forward.
Consider water as an example. At
ambient conditions, water will sim-
ply make you wet if you get dripped
or sprayed on. By OSHA standards,
once the temperature of water exceeds
140F (60C), it starts to become det-
rimental to personnel upon contact. At
this point, the range of human toler-
ance becomes a factor. However, as the
temperature continues to elevate, it
eventually moves into a range that be-
comes scalding upon human contact.
Human tolerance is no longer a factor
because the water has become hazard-
ous and the decision is made for you.
Before continuing, a point of clari-
fication. The 140F temperature men-
tioned above is with respect to sim-
ply coming in contact with an object
at that temperature. Brief contact at
that temperature would not be detri-
mental. In various litigation related
to scalding it has been determined
that an approximate one-second ex-
posure to 160F water will result in
third degree burns. An approximate
half-minute exposure to 130F water
will result in third degree burns. And
an approximate ten minute exposure
to 120F water can result in third-
degree burns.
With the maximum temperature
limit of 366F (185.5C) for Category-
D fluid services, what the owner
needs to consider are three factors: (1)
within that range of 140F (60C), the
temperature at which discomfort be-
gins to set in, to 366F (185.5C), the
upper limit of Category-D fluids, what
do we consider hazardous; (2) what is
the level of opportunity for risk to per-
sonnel; and (3) what is the level of as-
sured integrity of the installation
Assured integrity means that, if
there are procedures and protocols in
place that require, validate and docu-
ment third-party inspection of all pipe
fabrication, installation and testing,
then there is a high degree of assured
integrity in the system. If some or all
of these requirements are not in place
then there is no assured integrity.
All three of these factors tem-
perature, risk of contact and assured
integrity have to be considered to-
gether to arrive at a reasonable deter-
mination for borderline Category-D
fluid services. If, for instance, a fluid
service is hot enough to be considered
hazardous, but is in an area of a fa-
cility that sees very little personnel
activity, then the fluid service could
still be considered as a Category-D
fluid service.
One factor I have not included here
is the degree of relative importance of
a fluid service. If a system failed, how
big of a disruption would it cause in
plant operation, and how does that
factor into this process?
For example, if a safety shower
water system has to be shut down for
leak repair, the downtime to make the
repairs has little impact on plant oper-
ations. This system would therefore be
of relatively low importance and not a
factor in this evaluation process.
If, on the other hand, a chilled water
system has to be shut down for leak re-
pair to a main header, this could have
a significant impact to operations and
production. This could translate into
lost production and could be consid-
ered a high degree of importance.
You could also extend this logic a bit
further by assigning normal fluid-ser-
vice status to the primary headers of
a chilled water system and assigning
Category D status to the secondary
distribution branches, then leak test
accordingly. You need to be cautious in
considering this. By applying different
category significance to the same pip-
ing system it could cause more confu-
sion than it is worth. In other words
it may be more value added to simply
default to the more conservative cat-
egory of normal.
Once it has been established that
there is a high assured integrity value
for these piping systems, there are two
remaining factors to be considered.
First, within the temperature range
indicated above, at what temperature
should a fluid be considered hazard-
ous? Second, how probable is it that
personnel could be in the vicinity of a
leak, should one occur?
For this discussion, let us deter-
mine that any fluid at 160F (71C)
and above is hazardous upon contact
with human skin. If the fluid you are
considering is within this tempera-
ture range, then it has the potential
of being considered a normal fluid, as
defined in B31.3, pending its location
as listed in Table 1.
For example, if you have a fluid that
is operating at 195F (90.6C), it would
be considered hazardous in this evalu-
ation. But, if the system is located in
a Group 5 area (Table 1) it could still
qualify as a Category D fluid service.
Leak test examples
After the above exercise in evaluating
a fluid service, we can now continue
with a few examples of leak test pro-
cedures. Using the designations given
in Table 2, these leak test procedures
will be categorized as follows:
Testing Category T-1.
T-1.1 This category covers liquid
piping systems categorized by ASME
B31.3 as Category-D fluid service and
Table 1. areas under ConsideraTion for CaTegory d
group description yes no
1 Personnel occupied space
2 Corridor frequented by personnel
3 Sensitive equipment (MCC, control room, and so on)
4 Corridor infrequently used by personnel
5 Maintenance & operations personnel only access
will require initial service leak test-
ing only.
1. If the system is not placed into ser-
vice or tested immediately after
flushing and cleaning, and has set
idle for an unspecified period of
time, it shall require a preliminary
pneumatic test at the discretion of
the owner. In doing so, air shall be
supplied to the system to a pressure
of 10 psig and held there for 15 min
to ensure that joints and compo-
nents have not been tampered with,
and that the system is still intact.
After this preliminary pressure
check, proceed.
2. After completion of the flushing and
cleaning process, connect the sys-
tem, if not already connected, to its
permanent supply source and to all
of its terminal points. Open the block
valve at the supply line and gradu-
ally feed the liquid into the system.
3. Start and stop the fill process to
allow proper high-point venting to
be accomplished. Hold pressure to
its minimum until the system is
completely filled and vented.
4. Once it is determined that the sys-
tem has been filled and vented prop-
erly, gradually increase pressure
until 50% of operating pressure is
reached. Hold that pressure for ap-
proximately two minutes to allow
piping strains to equalize. Continue
to supply the system gradually until
full operating pressure is achieved.
5. During the process of filling the sys-
tem, check all joints for leaks. Should
leaks be found at any time during
this process, drain the system, re-
pair leak(s) and begin again with
Step 1. (Caveat: Should the leak be
no more than a drip every minute or
two on average at a flange joint, it
could require simply checking the
torque on the bolts without draining
the entire system. If someone forgot
to fully tighten the bolts, then do so
now. If it happens to be a threaded
joint you may still need to drain the
system, disassemble the joint, clean
the threads, add new sealant and re-
connect the joint before continuing.)
6. Record test results and fill in all re-
quired fields on the leak test form.
T-1.2. This category covers pneu-
matic piping systems categorized by
ASME B31.3 as Category-D fluid ser-
vice and will require initial service
leak testing.
1. After completion of the blow-down
process, the system shall be connected
to its permanent supply source, if not
already done so, and to all of its ter-
minal points. Open the block valve
at the supply line and gradually feed
the gas into the system.
2. Increase the pressure to a point
equal to the lesser of one-half the
operating pressure or 25 psig. Make
a preliminary check of all joints by
sound or bubble test. If leaks are
found, release pressure, repair
leak(s) and begin again with Step 1.
If no leaks are identified, continue
to Step 3.
3. Continue to increase pressure in 25
psi increments, holding that pres-
sure momentarily (approximately
2 min) after each increase to allow
piping strains to equalize, until the
operating pressure is reached.
4. Check for leaks by sound or bubble
test, or both. If leaks are found, re-
lease pressure, repair leak(s) and
begin again with Step 2. If no leaks
are found, the system is ready for
service.
5. Record test results and fill in all re-
quired fields on the leak test form.
Category T-3.1 Hydrostatic Leak
Test. T-3.1. This category covers
liquid piping systems categorized by
ASME B31.3 as normal fluid service.
1. If the system is not placed into ser-
vice or tested immediately after
flushing and cleaning, and has set
idle for an unspecified period of
time, it shall require a preliminary
pneumatic test at the discretion of
the owner. In doing so, air shall be
supplied to the system to a pressure
of 10 psig and held there for 15 min-
utes to ensure that joints and com-
ponents have not been tampered
with, and that the system is still in-
tact. After this preliminary pressure
check, proceed.
2. After completion of the flushing and
cleaning process, with the flush/test
manifold still in place and the tem-
porary potable water supply still
connected (reconnect if necessary),
open the block valve at the supply
line and complete filling the system
with potable water.
3. Start and stop the fill process to
allow proper high-point venting to
be accomplished. Hold pressure to
its minimum until the system is
completely filled and vented.
4. Once it is determined that the sys-
tem has been filled and vented
properly, gradually increase pres-
sure until 50% of the test pressure
is reached. Hold that pressure for
approximately two minutes to allow
piping strains to equalize. Continue
to supply the system gradually until
test pressure is achieved.
5. During the process of filling the sys-
tem and increasing pressure to 50%
of the test pressure, check all joints
for leaks. Should any leaks be found,
drain system, repair leak(s) and
begin again with Step 1.
6. Once the test pressure has been
achieved, hold it for a minimum of
30 min or until all joints have been
checked for leaks. This includes valve
and equipment seals and packing.
7. If leaks are found, evacuate system
as required, repair and repeat from
Step 2. If no leaks are found, evacu-
ate system and replace all items
temporarily removed.
8. Record all data and activities on
leak test forms.
The three examples above should
provide an idea as to the kind of guide-
line that needs to be created in provid-
ing direction to the contractor respon-
sible for the work.
Preparation
For leak testing to be successful on
your project, careful preparation is
key. This preparation starts with
gathering information on test pres-
sures, test fluids, and the types of
tests that will be required. The most
convenient place for this information
to reside is the piping line list or pip-
ing system list.
A piping line list and piping system
list achieve the same purpose, only to
different degrees of detail. On some
projects, it may be more practical to
compile the information by entire
service fluid systems. Other projects
may require a more detailed approach
Table 2. general leak TesTing
sCenarios
Category description
T-1 Initial service leak test
T-2 Hydrostatic leak test
T-3 Pneumatic leak test
T-4 Sensitive leak test
T-5 Alternative leak test
by listing each to and from line along
with the particular data for each line.
The line list itself is an excellent
control document that might include
the following for each line item:
1. Line size
2. Fluid
3. Nominal material of construction
4. Pipe specification
5. Insulation specification
6. P&ID
7. Line sequence number
8. From and to information
9. Pipe code
10. Fluid service category
11. Heat tracing
12. Operating pressure
13. Design pressure
14. Operating temperature
15. Design temperature
16. Type of cleaning
17. Test pressure
18. Test fluid
19. Type of test
Developing this type of information on a
single form provides everyone involved
with the basic information needed for
each line. Having access to this line-by-
line information in such a concise, well-
organized manner reduces guess-work
and errors during testing.
Test results, documented on the test
data forms, will be maintained under
separate cover. Together, the line list
provides the required information on
each line or system, and the test-data
forms provide signed verification of
the actual test data of the test circuits
that make up each line or system.
VaLiDatiOn
The process of validation has been
around for longer than the 40 plus
years the author has been in this
business. You may know it by its less
formal namesakes walk-down and
checkout. Compared to validation,
walk-down and checkout procedures
are not nearly as complex, stringent,
or all inclusive.
Validation is actually a subset ac-
tivity under the umbrella of commis-
sioning and qualification (C&Q). It is
derived from the need to authenticate
and document specifically defined re-
quirements for a project and stems in-
directly from, and in response to, the
Code of Federal Regulation 29CFR
Titles 210 and 211 current Good Man-
ufacturing Practice (cGMP) and U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
requirements. These CFR Titles and
FDA requirements drove the need to
demonstrate or prove compliance.
These requirements can cover
everything from verification of ex-
amination and inspection, documen-
tation of materials used, software
functionality and repeatability to
welder qualification, welding ma-
chine qualification, and so on.
The cGMP requirements under
29CFR Titles 210 and 211 are a
vague predecessor of what valida-
tion has become, and continues to
become. From these basic govern-
mental outlines, companies, and the
pharmaceutical industry as a whole,
have increasingly provided improved
interpretation of these guidelines to
meet many industry-imposed, as well
as self-imposed requirements.
To a lesser extent, industrial proj-
ects outside the pharmaceutical, food
and beverage, and semi-conductor
industries, industries not prone to
require such in-depth scrutiny, could
benefit from adopting some of the es-
sential elements of validation, such
as: material verification, leak-test re-
cords, welder and welding operator-
qualification records, and so on.
At face value this exercise would pro-
vide an assurance that the fabricating
and installing contractor is fulfilling its
contractual obligation. The added ben-
efit is that, in knowing that this degree
of scrutiny will take place, the contrac-
tor will take extra measures to mini-
mize the possibility of any rejects.
This is not to imply that all con-
tractors are out to get by with as
little as they can. Just the opposite is
actually true. Most contractors quali-
fied to perform at this level of work
are in it to perform well and to meet
their obligations. Most will already
have their own verification proce-
dure in place.
The bottom line is that the owner
is still responsible for the end result.
No one wants to head for the litiga-
tion table at the end of a project. And
the best way to avoid that is for the
owner to be proactive in developing
its requirements prior to initiating
a project. This allows the specifica-
tion writers and reviewers the benefit
of having time to consider just what
those requirements are and how they
should be defined without the time
pressures imposed when this activity
is project driven.
Performing this kind of activity
while in the heat of a project sched-
ule tends to force quick agreement to
specifications and requirements writ-
ten by parties other than those with
the owners best interest at heart.
Validating a piping system to ensure
compliance and acceptability is always
beneficial and money well spent.
FinaL RemaRks
Before concluding this series of ar-
ticles, there are just a couple of final
points to be made.
Evolving standards
We have previously discussed industry
standards and how they are selected
and applied on a project [4]. What was
not covered is the fact that most proj-
ects will actually have a need to com-
ply with multiple industry standards.
In a large grassroots pharmaceuti-
cal project you may need to include
industry compliance standards for
much of the underground utility pip-
ing, ASME B31.1 for boiler external
piping (if not included with packaged
boilers), ASME B31.3 for chemical and
utility piping throughout the facility,
and ASME-BPE for any hygienic pip-
ing requirements.
These and other standards, thanks
in large part to the cooperation of the
standards developers and ANSI, work
hand-in-hand with one another by ref-
erencing each other where necessary.
These standards committees have
enough work to do within their de-
fined scope of work without inadver-
tently duplicating work done by other
standards organizations.
An integrated set of American Na-
tional Standards is the reason that,
when used appropriately, these stan-
dards can be used as needed on a proj-
ect without fear of conflict between
those standards.
One thing that should be understood
with industry standards is the fact that
they will always be in a state of flux; al-
ways changing. And this is a good thing.
These are changes that reflect updating
to a new understanding, expanded clar-
ification on the various sections that
make up a standard, staying abreast
of technology, and simply building the
knowledge base of the standard.
For example, two new parts are
being added to the seven parts cur-
rently existing in ASME-BPE. There
will be a Metallic Materials of Con-
struction Part (MMOC), and a Certi-
fication Part (CR). This is all part of
the ever-evolving understanding of
the needs of the industrial community
and improved clarification, through
discussion and debate on content.
Conclusion
This series of articles attempted to
cover a wide range of topics on in-
dustrial piping in order to provide a
basic broad understanding of some
key points, without going into great
detail on any specific topic. It is hoped
that the readers of this series will dig
deeper into this subject matter to dis-
cover and learn some of the more fi-
nite points of what was discussed in
this and previous articles. It is hoped
that this series provides enough basic
knowledge of piping for you to recog-
nize when there is more to a piping
issue than what you are being told. n
Acknowledgement
My deep appreciation again goes to
Earl Lamson, senior project manager
with Eli Lilly and Co., for taking the
time to review each of these articles.
His comments help make the articles
better documents than they otherwise
would have been. He obliged me by
applying the same skill, intelligence
and insight he brings to everything he
does. His comments kept me concise
and on target.
Author
involved in industrial piping
design, engineering and con-
struction since 1965. Positions
have included design engineer,
piping design instructor, proj-
ect engineer, project supervi-
sor, piping department super-
visor, engineering manager
and president of W. M. Huitt
Co. (P.O. Box 31154, St. Louis,
MO 63131-0154. Phone: 314-
966-8919; Email: wmhuitt@aol.com) a piping
consulting firm founded in 1987. His experience
covers both the engineering and construction
fields and crosses industrial lines to include
petroleum refining, chemical, petrochemical,
pharmaceutical, pulp and paper, nuclear power,
and coal gasification. He has written numerous
specifications including engineering and con-
struction guidelines to ensure that design and
construction comply with code requirements,
owner expectations and good design practices.
tributor to ASME-BPE and sits on two corporate
specification review boards.
References
1. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: The
Basics, Chem. Eng. February 2007, pp. 4247.
2. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants:
Flanges, Chem. Eng. March 2007, pp. 5661.
3. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Design
Elements, Chem. Eng. July 2007, pp. 5057.
4. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Codes
and Fabrication, Chem. Eng. October 2007,
pp. 6876.
5. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: In-
stallation and Cleaning, Chem. Eng. April
2008, pp. 4858.
Feature Report Engineering Practice
48 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM FEBRUARY 2006
Liang-Chuan Peng
Peng Engineering
Stress Analysis for
Piping Systems
Resting on Supports
P
iping-flexibility and stress
analysis are required in the
design of most piping systems
before the piping is installed
in a chemical-process or other
plant. It is intended to ensure the
safety of the plant and thus protect
the interests of the owner and the gen-
eral public. Owing to the availability
of powerful computer software pack-
ages, the analysis has become simple
and routine. However, due to miscon-
ceptions of some software approaches,
some analyses performed do not reflect
the actual situation of the piping. The
engineers have unwittingly performed
many erroneous analyses that put the
safety of the plants in jeopardy. One
of the most common misconceptions
adopted by some computer programs
is the method of analyzing the piping
with regards to resting supports.
The most common and economical
approach in dealing with the numerous
lines of piping in a process plant is to
rest the piping on pipe racks or other
support structures. The piping is either
supported directly on the pipe wall or
through pipe shoes, which are attach-
ments placed under the pipe to distrib-
ute the pipe weight and other loads to
the support. These types of supports
are generally called resting supports.
These supports are single-acting, be-
cause they only stop the pipe from
moving downward but allow the pipe to
move up freely. Due to the nature of this
non-linearity, exact solutions cannot be
expected for piping that goes through
various temperature cycles. Therefore,
three major schools of thought have
been conceived in the pipe-stress-soft-
ware community with regards to rest-
ing supports and temperature cycles.
Unfortunately, two of these are in ap-
parent violation of the code require-
ments. As a basis for explaining how
these computer methods violate the
code, the requirements of the code are
summarized in the following.
ASME code
ASME B31 code for pressure piping
is an American National Standard.
It also becomes a safety code when
adopted by federal, state, or local
governments. Nowadays, most non-
nuclear piping systems in the U.S. and
in many other countries are designed
according to ASME B31 code. Among
many other things, the code requires
that the piping shall be designed to
meet the limitation of the following
categories of stresses.
a. Internal pressure stress, S
hp
:
Stresses due to internal pressure shall
be less than the basic code allowable
stress, including longitudinal joint ef-
ficiency, of the pipe at design tempera-
ture, S
h
(E).
b. Longitudinal (sustained) stress,
S
L
: The sum of longitudinal stresses
due to pressure, weight, and other sus-
tained loadings shall not exceed the
allowable stress, excluding longitudi-
nal joint efficiency, at design tempera-
Avoid erroneous analysis
that may result from
using computer programs
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM FEBRUARY 2006 49
Stress Analysis for
Piping Systems
Resting on Supports
ture, S
h
. The sustained longitudinal
stress normally consists of only the
longitudinal pressure stress, S
lp
, and
the weight bending stress, S
lw
. In this
case, the code requires that
S
lp
+ S
lw
< S
h
(1)
To get an idea of the weight stress lim-
itation, S
lp
can be taken as 0.5
.
S
h
(one
half of the hoop stress). Thus, Equa-
tion (1) becomes
S
lw
< 0.5
.
S
h
(2)
c. Stress due to occasional loads,
S
oc
: The effects of pressure, weight,
other sustained loads, and occasional
loads including earthquake and wind,
shall not exceed k
.
S
h
. The k value var-
ies from 1.15 to 1.33 depending on
the duration of loading and the type
of plant. Wind and earthquake forces
need not be considered as acting con-
currently.
d. Displacement stress range, S
E
:
The stress range due to thermal expan-
sion of pipe, movements of restraints,
earthquake or wind sway, tidal move-
ment, and temperature change in con-
nected equipment shall not exceed the
allowable displacement stress range
S
A
defined as follow
S
A
= f
.
(1.25S
c
+ 0.25S
h
) (3)
where S
c
is the basic allowable stress
at minimum metal temperature ex-
pected during the displacement cycle
under analysis. When S
h
is greater
than S
L
, the difference between them
may be added to the above. That is
S
A
= f
.
[ 1.25
.
S
c
+ 0.25
.
S
h
+ (S
h
S
L
)]
= f
.
[1.25
.
(S
c
+ S
h
) S
L
] (4)
Longitudinal joint efficiency need not
be included. S
h
is the basic allowable
stress at maximum metal tempera-
ture expected during the displacement
cycle under analysis. Longitudinal
joint efficiency need not be included.
f is a stress range reduction factor,
which is equal to 1.0 for 7,000 or less
cycles.
The displacement stress range is tra-
ditionally called the thermal-expan-
sion stress range. For most applica-
tions, the number of cycles expected
is much less than 7,000. Therefore, for
discussion purposes f can be taken as
unity. That is
S
A
+ S
L
= 1.25
.
(S
c
+ S
h
) (5)
Since S
E
is limited to S
A
, the code re-
quires that the total stress (S
E
+ S
L
)
shall satisfy the following
(S
E
+ S
L
) < 1.25
.
(S
c
+ S
h
) (6)
The total stress includes mostly cy-
clic stresses such as expansion stress
from ambient to operating tempera-
ture, pressure stress from zero to op-
erating pressure, and weight stress
from empty to full and also from cold
to hot. At low to moderate tempera-
tures where the yield strength gov-
erns the allowable stress, 1.25
.
(S
c

+ S
h
) is roughly equivalent to 1.56
.
S
y
for ASME B31.1 code, and 1.67
.
S
y
for ASME B31.3 code, where S
y
is
the yield strength of the pipe mate-
rial. This shows that the allowable
value for the calculated total stress
is over 1.5
.
S
y
for 7.000 cycles of oper-
ation. Furthermore, since the stress
intensification factor for ASME B31
code is only one half of the theo-
retical value, the actual total local
stress limit is greater than 3.0
.
S
y
for
7,000 cycles of operation. From this
brief deduction, it is clear that with
any kind of significant stress, some
yielding or relaxation in the pipe
will occur.
Figure 1 shows the situation when
the pipe is stressed beyond the yield
point and to Point A. In this situation,
the actual stress remains the same as
the yield stress S
y
. However, the cal-
culated stress is the elastic equivalent
stress S
E
which is used in the code-
requirement evaluation. The pipe
will stay at Point A throughout the
operation or it might relax to a lower
stress point. Assuming the relaxation
does not occur, the pipe will cool down
to Point B at ambient condition. This
produces a reverse-expansion stress
at the cold condition. This stress rever-
sal is very important in the evaluation
of the analysis method.
In order to make the matter less
confusing, only the sustained stress
and displacement stress range will
be discussed in this paper. From the
above summary of ASME B31 code re-
quirements, it can be concluded that
a piping system should be designed
so the following stress conditions are
satisfied:
The sustained stress due to weight,
pressure, and other sustained loads,
shall be smaller than the yield
strength of the pipe, to avoid gross
NOMENCLATURE
E Longitudinal-joint
efficiency of the pipe
e Strain
f Stress-range-reduction
factor, f =1.0
for 7,000 or fewer
operation cycles
S Stress
S
A
Allowable stress range for
thermal expansion and
displacement stresses
S
c
Basic allowable stress
of the pipe material at
ambient (cold)
temperature
S
E
Expansion stress range
S
EC
Expansion stress at
cool-down (cold) state
S
h
Basic allowable stress
of the pipe material at
operating (hot)
temperature
S
L
Sustained longitudinal
stress
S
lp
stress due to pressure
S
lw
stress due to weight
S
y
Yield strength of the
pipe material
FIGURE 1. Any kind of significant

stress will cause some yielding or relax-
ation in the pipe. Shown here is an ex-
ample of reverse expansion stress due
to yielding (see text)
deformation. It should be noted that
the sustained stress is often limited
by the creep strength of the pipe at
higher temperatures
The sum of the sustained stress and
displacement stress range, among
other things, can reach as high as
1.5 times the yield strength. If the
pipe involves a stress intensification
factor, this sum can go as high as 3.0
times the yield strength
The reason that the allowable displace-
ment stress can go higher than the
yield strength is because the displace-
ment stress is self-limiting in nature.
Although it is allowed to exceed the
yield strength, once the amount of ap-
plied displacement is reached the move-
ment is stopped and the expansion will
go no further. This kind of self-limiting
stress will not cause failure in one ap-
plication. Therefore, the failure mode of
displacement stress is fatigue through
many cycles of repeated operations.
Also, because the displacement
stress normally relaxes due to yield-
ing, creeping, or temperature normal-
ization, the initial stress value will be
greatly reduced after a certain period
of operation. The sign of the stress will
then reverse when the piping is cooled
down to ambient temperature. There-
fore it is important to note that the
initial stress has very little meaning
for the displacement load. The impor-
tant measure is the potential maxi-
mum strain range expected.
An example
A simple example demonstrates the
merits and pitfalls of some analysis
approaches designed to satisfy the
code requirements and philosophy.
Figure 2 shows a typical piping sys-
tem resting on a support structure.
The piping has one end connected
to a process tower and the other end
connected to another piece of process
equipment. The piping is supported
at three locations. As the tempera-
ture of the process fluid increases, the
tower expands upward and the pipe
expands. With the tower connection
gradually moving upwards, the piping
system also goes through the follow-
ing sequence of changes:
With a small movement, the piping
is held down on all supports by the
weight of the piping including fluid
and attachments. Some thermal ex-
pansion (displacement) stress is gen-
erated, but the weight stress remains
the same as in the cold condition
As the movement increases some-
what, the piping will lift from the
first support, support 20. A further
increase of the tower movement
will lift the pipe off support 30, thus
making a large portion of the piping
unsupported. This increases greatly
the sustained weight stress
As the system reaches the maximum
operating temperature, the tower
connection moves up some more, but
the pipe is still being supported at
support 40. The expansion stress in-
creases, corresponding to the larger
movement. The sustained weight
stress remains the same as no addi-
tional piping is lifting off its support
If the process system is held at this
maximum operating temperature
for a period of time, the thermal ex-
pansion stress (displacement stress)
will be relaxed somewhat. The
amount of relaxation depends on the
stress level and the operating tem-
perature. However, the sustained
weight plus pressure stress remains
unchanged
When the plant cools down, the pip-
ing moves back on to its supports.
This reduces the weight stress to its
initial cold-condition weight stress.
The system, however, generates
some reverse thermal expansion
stress due to relaxation at operating
temperature.
If considerable yielding or creep oc-
curs at hot condition, the pipe may
return to the support point while
the temperature is still consider-
ably higher than the ambient tem-
perature. A continued cooling down
to ambient temperature will cause
high thermal stresses and loads due
to stoppage of the support that pre-
vents the pipe from moving further
down
In the next operating cycle, the
weight stress goes back to the hot
condition stress sustained, but the
expansion stress will be reduced to
a level corresponding to the relaxed
state
Three main approaches have been ad-
opted by computer software packages
in dealing with systems like the one
shown in Figure 2.
General, straightforward ap-
proach: This is an approach com-
monly adopted by general-purpose,
finite-element programs. In this ap-
proach, the sustained stress and the
expansion stress will be calculated
separately without checking the influ-
ence of the one on the other. The sus-
tained stress is calculated considering
only the weight and pressure loads at
the ambient state. All supports are con-
sidered active, as no temperature and
support displacement is involved. The
expansion stress range is calculated
only with the temperature change. No
weight influence is considered. If the
pipe lifts off from the support due to
temperature, it is considered inactive
for the expansion analysis.
This approach may mishandle both
the sustained and expansion stresses.
First, the sustained stress calculated
is the stress at ambient condition.
The most important sustained stress
at the hot condition is not calculated.
Secondly, the expansion stress may be
under estimated, because the restrain-
ing effects of the supports, over which
the piping is held down by weight, are
ignored.
Algebraic-subtraction approach:
In this approach, the sustained stress
is calculated considering only the
weight and pressure loads at ambi-
50 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM FEBRUARY 2006
FIGURE 2. Shown here is a typical piping system on resting supports. The picture is a
2D isometric plot of a pipe with a horizontal bend. Care must be taken to account for for
the piping lifting off the supports (see text example)
ent state. All supports are active, as
no temperature and support displace-
ment is involved. The expansion stress
range is calculated by subtracting
algebraically the temperature-plus-
weight condition (hot operating con-
dition) minus the weight condition at
ambient state (initial cold condition).
Three major issues are at stake in
this approach. First, the sustained
stress calculated is the stress at am-
bient condition; the most important
sustained stress at the hot condi-
tion is not calculated. Secondly, this
approach tries to include the cyclic
weight stress range, changing from
ambient to hot conditions, in the ex-
pansion stress range. This is not
consistent with the code philosophy
of separating sustained stress from
self-limiting expansion stress. Fur-
thermore, the cyclic sustained stress
involves not only the weight stress
change from ambient to hot, but also
the pressure stress change from zero
to operating pressure, and the initial
weight stress change from empty to
full. Thirdly, the stress for the temper-
ature-plus-weight condition depends
greatly on the signs of the moments
of the two loads included. If the mo-
ment of the weight change is in the op-
posite direction of the moment of the
temperature change, the calculated
expansion stress will be smaller than
that calculated by the temperature
change alone. This is not correct, as
relaxation can change the sign of the
expansion stress during the course of
operation. It is important to note that
the stresses involved in Equations (5)
and (6) are to be added absolutely.
Operating-condition approach:
In this approach, all supports are
checked at the operating condition,
which normally involves temperature
plus weight and pressure. If the pipe
lifts off from a support at operating
condition, that particular support is
then treated as inactive for both the
sustained weight plus pressure stress
and the expansion stress calcula-
tions. By the same token, if the pipe is
weighted down on a support at operat-
ing condition, that support is treated
as active for both sustained and ex-
pansion stress calculations. With this
method the sustained stress and the
expansion stress are calculated inde-
pendently once the activity of the sup-
ports is determined.
The sustained weight plus pressure
stress calculated with this approach
is the true sustained stress at hot op-
erating condition, when the stress is
high and the pipe is weak. The one
thing that may appear to be improper
to some inexperienced analysts is the
weight displacement that may show a
downward movement at support loca-
tions. This downward displacement
represents only the movement of pipe
from a thermally lifted condition. At
support locations, the operational
displacements combining weight and
temperature will be either zero or
in the upward direction. The expan-
sion stress calculated is the potential
stress range, recognizing that the
sign and the magnitude may change
throughout the operating cycles. This
expansion stress is combined abso-
lutely with the sustained stress in the
evaluation of the total stress given by
Equation (6).
From the above discussions, it is ob-
vious that the third (operating-condi-
tion) approach is the only method that
meets the code philosophy and require-
ments. The other two approaches all
have flaws in calculating the sustained
stress and the expansion stress range.
Final remarks
Analysis of the piping resting on sup-
ports is nothing new. Engineers have
analyzed this kind of piping routinely
for more than two decades. The er-
roneous concepts of some computer
software packages and the blind ac-
ceptance of computer results by en-
gineers, however, are new. Attracted
by the glamorous nature of thermal-
flexibility analysis, many engineers
have forgotten that sustained stress is
much more important than expansion
stress. Sustained stress is the primary
stress, whereas the expansion stress is
a secondary stress. From a comparison
of Equations (2) and (3), it is clear that
sustained weight stress is much more
critical than the expansion stress. At
low temperatures, when the hot al-
lowable stress has the same value as
the cold allowable stress, the weight
allowable stress limit is only about
one-third of the expansion-stress al-
lowable limit. At higher operating
temperatures in the creep range, the
weight allowable stress limit can be as
low as only one tenth of the expansion
allowable limit.
Therefore, it is important to note
that the first priority of the analysis is
to accurately determine the sustained
weight stress at hot operating condi-
tion. This is not to say that expansion
stress is unimportant. A good analysis
shall calculate as accurately as possible
both sustained and expansion stresses.
It should be noted that by calculat-
ing weight stress at cold condition, the
analysis result is not expected to indi-
cate where a spring support is needed.
It is only when the weight stress at
hot operating condition is calculated
that the engineer will be able to detect
when a spring support is needed. A
spring support is made from precom-
pressed coil springs; as the pipe moves
up and down, the spring is stretched
or compressed, causing the load to
change. With a properly selected
spring support, the pipe is always well
supported, regardless of any up-or-
down movement. Spring supports are
thus used to reduce the weight stress
at hot operating condition.
The operating-condition approach
may be somewhat conservative for
pipes that only lift up a very small
amount from the support. In this case,
the rule of thumb is to consider the
support double acting to check both
sustained and expansion stresses. If
both stresses are within the code al-
lowable, then the system should be
considered as acceptable.
Author
Liang-Chuan Peng, P.E., is
the president of Peng Engi-
neering (3010 Manila Lane,
Houston, Tex. 77043; Phone:
713-462-7390; Fax: 713-462-
6930; Email: Lcpeng@aol.
com). Previously, he has been
employed by M.W. Kellogg,
Foster Wheeler, Brown &
Root, Bechtel, Taiwan Power
and others. Peng has over 35
years of experience in pip-
ing-stress analysis and engineering. He is the
original co-author of NUPIPE software, and has
developed the PENGS and SIMFLEX series of
pipe-stress-analysis computer programs. Peng
has performed troubleshooting on piping sys-
tems and taught piping-engineering seminars in
more than a dozen countries. He has published
18 technical papers on piping engineering. He
earned a M.S. in mechanical engineering from
Kansas State University. Peng is a member of
ASME and a registered professional engineer in
Texas and California.
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHE.COM FEBRUARY 2006 51
F
ailures of piping due to vibration-
induced fatigue are a serious
problem in the chemical process
industries (CPI) and a matter of
concern for the safety and reliability of
plant operations. Due to the complexity
of flow-induced vibrations in pipes, no
closed-form design solutions those
that can be expressed in terms of well-
known functions are available.
In this article, we present a method
for quantifying vibration forcing func-
tions for the optimal design of metal
piping systems in the CPI, as well as
an example of its use. The method is
an analytical technique based on the
theory of vibrations in the frequency
domain (Inverse Theory of vibrations).
The method can be easily adopted by
practicing engineers.
vibration measurement
Piping systems experience various
vibratory loads throughout their life-
cycles. If not controlled, these pipe vi-
brations will lead to fatigue failures at
points of high stress intensity and can
even damage pipe supports. These fail-
ure scenarios could result in plant out-
ages or in more severe consequences,
such as fire or loss of human life. Thus,
it is imperative that piping systems be
safeguarded against such failures.
To avoid fatigue failures in piping
systems, engineers carry out dynamic
analyses of vibrations during a design
adequacy check for a piping system. The
major difficulty in dealing with the vi-
bration problems lies in estimating the
forcing function. If the exciting forces
acting on the pipe can be
quantified precisely, the
system response can be
determined with great
accuracy by the existing
analytical methods. But
unfortunately, this is not
readily possible in most
cases, since the vibrations
in an operating pipeline
are flow-induced.
The complexity of flow
patterns and the mecha-
nism of force-coupling
render the determination
of the forcing function ex-
tremely difficult. In such a scenario,
data in the form of field vibration
measurements in conjunction with
analytical methods can provide a
basis for estimating the dynamic force
and stress [13].
In our method, we analyze the prob-
lem in terms of the theory of vibrations
in the frequency domain. We present a
simple numerical technique that can
be easily built into any of the common
spreadsheet computer programs with
the help of macros.
Current vibration approaches
The current practice for exploring
pipe vibrations is the vibration screen-
ing criteria method. In this method,
vibration response parameters, such
as velocity or displacement, are mea-
sured in situ and compared against
some established acceptance criteria,
usually in the form of graphs known
as vibration severity charts [4]. In the
petroleum refining and petrochemical
industries, these charts are used ex-
tensively. However, they are typically
found to yield conservative estimates.
Another widely used tool is the
ASME OM Code [5] a standard fol-
lowed for piping in the nuclear power
industry. Here the vibration velocity
for a piping span between two nodes
is the criterion. The limiting value for
pipe-vibration velocity is determined
by an empirical relationship, which
involves coefficients that depend on
several parameters, such as weld ar-
rangements, mass lumping, and oth-
ers. When the peak value for the ve-
locity is less that 12.7 mm/s, it may be
assumed that the piping has sufficient
dynamic capacity. If the vibration ex-
ceeds this level, however, the ASME
guide recommends reviewing the vi-
brations with more information on the
potential causes and taking steps to
reduce vibration levels.
Feature report
46 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com may 2012
S. Saha
Reliance Refinery
A technique to quantify vibration forces
can help prevent pipe failures due to
vibration-induced fatigue
M
O
U
X
L
M
L
Simply supported pipe

Compressor
discharge piping
Region of failure
Compressor
nozzle
Vessel
nozzle
A
B
Figure 1. The span of pipe between two supported
points can be measured for vibrations
A Method for Quantifying
Pipe Vibrations
Figure 2. The mid-point between two supported
points on a pipe is often where vibration failure occurs
We have observed the above meth-
ods to be conservative and to provide
a cookbook or a go/no-go approach.
They tell us only whether or not the
vibrations are within acceptable lev-
els. It is not possible to generate a
quantitative estimate of the forcing
function and of the actual stress levels
on the pipes, both of which are essen-
tial for a design adequacy check. We
studied the problem within the frame-
work of Inverse Theory. We will focus
on steady-state vibrations, because
they have been found to cause maxi-
mum damage.
ProPosed method
Theoretically, for a simply supported
pipe, the response at any location
along the span may be determined by
the vibration measurements at two
distinct points in the span. The span
is a straight portion between two
fixed points or supports (Figure 1). A
single point measurement near the
mid-span is also sufficient. Further
mathematical details are included in
the second part of this article. The
measurements could be realtime dis-
placement, velocity or acceleration
with the post-processed fast Fourier
transform (FFT) plots. The calcula-
tions are straightforward and ame-
nable to simple spreadsheet program-
ming with macros.
Steps for implementation
The following are the steps needed to
implement the method. The notations
and equations mentioned in the steps
are shown on p. 49.
1. Identify the pipe span in which the
vibration is severe.
2. Take velocity readings at two points
in the span. One of the points should
preferably (but not necessarily) be
the mid-span. The measurements
can be made using any portable
handheld accelerometers or realtime
velocity-measuring devices. Finally,
the time history readings are to be
converted into FFT plots as output
(a part of the post-processing fea-
tures of the measurement devices).
3. As explained on p. 49, construct
matrix G of size 4 4, as in Equa-
tion (10). The elements of the matrix
are based on the material and the
damping properties of the material.
4. Note that the matrix elements are
complex quantities having real and
imaginary parts.
5. Construct the vector V using Equa-
tion (12). The first two elements are 0;
the remaining two are the measured
FFT responses at the two points ob-
tained from Step 2. The elements of V
are also complex quantities.
6. The coefficients (A,B,C,D) are ob-
tained as a solution vector X from
Equation (13). As the quantities are
complex, a suitable complex matrix
solution routine is used.
7. The displacements at any location
in the span can be calculated with
the help of the coefficients using
Equation (5).
8. The stresses and end reactions are
calculated from Equations (14)(16).
9. Repeat the procedure for a range of
frequencies. The frequencies chosen
should cover the peaks of maximum
response.
10. From the above, the frequency
variation of the output parameters,
such as stress, and the reactions,
are obtained. These responses are
combined to obtain the results for
stress and end reactions (for exam-
ple, Equations (15)(16)). Resultant
values may be compared with those
allowable, as an adequacy check. For
example, the endurance limit may be
considered as the allowable for the
stresses for fatigue evaluations. The
support member may be checked for
the dynamic reactions.
11. If the response parameters are
within allowable limits, terminate
the procedure. Otherwise, make a
modification based on engineering
judgment, and repeat the procedure.
The numerical tool required is a
simple matrix-solution routine for
complex quantities. Such modules
are readily available or may be easily
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com may 2012 47

P
k

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

m
m
/
s
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
180 184 188 192
Frequency, Hz
FFT Plot for Velocity
196 200 204 208
Fig. 5: Stress Distribution.

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
0
2
6
4
8
12
10
14
Stress distribution
180 184 188 192
Frequency, Hz
196 200 204 208
With
error
Base
curve

F
o
r
c
e
,

N
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
5,000
4,000
6,000
End reactions
180 184 188 192
Frequency, Hz
196 200 204 208
Reaction
@ x = L
Reaction
@ x = 0

M
o
d
u
l
u
s

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

m
m
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Coefficients
180 184 188 192
Frequency, Hz
196 200 204 208
A
B
C
D
NomeNclature
L Length of pipe span
x Distance along the
span
Differential operator
Circular frequency
Stress
m Mass per unit length
U Displacement of pipe
Fourier transform of U
k Wave number
FFT Fast Fourier trans-
form
R Reaction force
EI Bending modulus
j Square root of 1
( )
T
Vector norm
Loss factor
Z Section modulus
Figure 3. A fast Fourier tranform plot for a
mid-span point shows high vibration speed
Figure 4. The peak at 200 Hz indicates the ex-
citation frequency due to compressor pulsations
Figure 5. The vibration stresses exceed the
endurance limit of the piping
Figure 6. After error is introduced, the varia-
tion in the solution is similar to maximum error
engineering
48 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com may 2012
programmed using mac-
ros available in a standard
spreadsheet.
Example problem
The method has been ap-
plied to vibrations in the dis-
charge piping (8 in. nominal
bore) leading from a refinery
fuel gas (RFG) screw compressor up to
the oil separator. Figure 2 shows the
model for numerical simulation. The
rotor frequency is around 3,000 rpm.
Heavy vibrations, along with failures,
in the small-bore connections have
been reported. The goal was to study
the problem and provide a solution for
reducing vibration levels and prevent-
ing such failures in the future.
Vibration measurements were
taken at the points of failure. An FFT
displacement plot of a point in the
mid-span is shown in Figure 3. There
is a peak at 200 Hz (that is, four times
the running speed), which is typical
of screw compressor pulsations. The
vibration velocity is around 62 mm/s,
which is much higher than the ASME
limit of 12.7 mm/s [5]. Hence for a com-
prehensive design check, the actual
stresses and the support reactions are
required. Also, there is no excitation
source of forces in the span. The exci-
tations are by the end moments.
Numerical simulation
FFT plots of displacements at points
0.25 and 0.5 of the pipe span have
been considered as inputs. As the
quantities are complex, both modulus
and phase were required. From Equa-
tion (14), the coefficients are solved.
The plots of coefficients A to D are
shown in Figure 4. On their basis,
the response (the stress and end reac-
tions) were calculated (Figures 5 and
6). As a part of the error analysis, a
random error with a peak magnitude
of 1% was introduced into the mea-
surements. The exercise was repeated
and the resultant plots are also shown
in Figures 5 and 6 for comparison.
Reduction of vibration stress
The plots (Figures 46) show peaks
at 200 Hz, which is the excitation fre-
quency due to pulsations generated
by the compressor. The stresses are
high and exceed the endurance limit.
As a check, a direct solution
(benchmark) based on calcu-
lated end moments was ob-
tained through finite element
analysis (FEA) by standard
commercial software. The re-
sults show a close match with
those of the proposed method
(Figures 7 and 8).
Figures 5 and 6 show the
results after the introduction
of the error. The variation in
the solution is about the same
order of magnitude of the
maximum error, which is also
in agreement with the theory.
A distinguishing feature
of this method is that no in-
formation is required on the
natural boundary conditions
(BCs). This is remarkable
since in the direct theory, the
solution depends on the BCs,
whereas in this inverse prob-
lem, the BCs do not play a
role. This is also significant in
the sense that practically, it
is almost impossible to assess
the true support conditions.
In order to reduce the
stresses, the modes around
the observed frequency of
200 Hz were identified. The modes
were then iteratively shifted by means
of additional restraints. The end mo-
ments were applied to determine the
stresses and the reactions. The final
configuration was achieved by further
fine-tuning considering practical con-
straints. Figures 9 and 10 show the
final configuration of the piping.
Vibration readings were again
taken after the implementation of the
recommendations (Figure 11). The
maximum reported vibration velocity
is around 5 mm/s. The results show
a drastic reduction in the vibration
levels, which proves the success of
the resolution and vindicates the pro-
posed method.
Final assessment
Vibration failure in operational pip-
ing is a serious problem that requires
comprehensive study and analysis
to solve. In this sense, the proposed
method has tremendous practical
value. A quantitative method with
proper mathematical basis has been
provided as an alternative to the
cookbook approach.
The method provides a basis for a
proper engineering design, and can be
easily adopted by engineers involved
in troubleshooting. It should be ac-
knowledged, however that trouble-
shooting vibrations in plant piping is
the job of a specialist with experience
in this field.
End Reaction)

R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

N
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
Reaction at x = 0
180 184 188 192
Frequency, Hz
196 200 204 208
Bench-
mark
Present
method

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

m
m
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.04
Displacement plot
180 184 188 192
Frequency, Hz
196 200 204 208
Bench-
mark
Present
method

New support
Figure 8. The proposed method requires no
information on natural boundary conditions
Figure 7. Results of the proposed method
match those using fnite element analysis
Figure 9. A view of the fnal confguration of the
piping shows additional pipe supports
Figure 10. New supports can be added to re-
duce vibration stresses
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com may 2012 49
Mathematical background
The basic pipe configuration is shown
in Figure 1. Considering the Ber-
noulli-Euler formulation and struc-
tural damping, the dynamic equation
of motion in the frequency domain [6]
is as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Equation (1) pertains to steady-state
vibrations with the frequency depen-
dence on . Here, the variables , M
0
,
M
L
are complex, arising out of the
Fourier Transform. BCs (Equation (3))
imply that the excitation at the ends
is by moments, which is the source
of vibration of the pipe in this span.
The damping component has been ex-
pressed in terms of the loss factor [7],
which is a function of . The solution
of Equation (1) (which is also termed a
wave solution [6,7]) can be written as:
(5)
The complex coefficients A,B,C and D
are independent of x, but dependent
on . The first two terms of Equation
(5) represent travelling waves from the
left and right ends respectively. The
last two terms represent evanescent
waves that rapidly decay away from the
boundaries. The complex wave number
k may be expressed as follows [7]:
(6)
(7)
Here, k
re
is the wave number for the
undamped case and k
im
may be ex-
pressed as:
(8)
The complex coefficients can be
obtained by the following matrix
system:
GX = V (9)
where G is the matrix
(10)
(11)
(12)
Here, X is the solution vector and V
is the vector comprising the displace-
ment measurements (from the FFT)
at points x
1
and x
2
in the span. It can
be observed that the determinant of G
is nonzero. Hence, G is invertible and
X can be solved uniquely as:
X = G
1
V (13)
After the coefficients are obtained,
other response quantities like velocity
and stress can be computed. For stress,
we have the expression as follows:
(14)
The stress function is a complex
quantity and has a continuous de-
pendence on frequency, which varies
theoretically from to . However,
for practical purposes, the response is
dominated by some finite number N
modes or frequencies. We can define
the total stress as the square root sum
of squares (SRSS) combination of the
individual components.
(15)
Here,
i
= (x,
i
). Because the quan-
tity is complex, the modulus has been
used for the combination. In the same
vein, the end reactions may be ob-
tained as follows:
(16)
The SRSS method has been used
for the computation of the resultants
for stress and the reaction forces. This
method is simple, reasonably accurate
and also widely used. Alternatively, for
a more rigorous analysis, other combi-
nations for cumulative fatigue evalu-
ation, such as the rain-flow counting
method or the more recent Dirliks
method [8] may be used.
The number of measurement points
may be reduced to one. This is because
of the exponential terms in the matrix
G. One of the coefficients, C or D, be-
comes negligible and we are left with
three coefficients.
Edited by Scott Jenkins
References
1. Saha, S. Estimation of Point Vibration Loads
for Industrial Piping. Journal of Pressure
Vessel Technology, Vol. 131, 2009, ASME,
New York.
2. Moussa, W.A., Abdel Hamid. A.N. On the
Evaluation of Dynamic Stresses in Pipelines
Using Limited Vibration Measurements and
FEA in the Frequency Domain. Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 121, 1999,
ASME, New York.
3. Dobson, B.J. and Rider, E., A Review of the
Indirect Calculation of Excitation Forces
from Measured Structural Response Data.
Jour. Mech. Eng. Sci. 204, 1990.
4. Wachel, J.C. Piping Vibration and Stress,
Proc. Machinery Vibration Monitoring &
Analysis, Vibration Institute, USA, 1981.
5. ASME OM. Code for Operation and Mainte-
nance of Nuclear Power Plants, ASME, New
York, 2004.
6. MacDaniel, J. and others, A Wave Approach
to Estimating Frequency-Dependent Damp-
ing Under Transient Loading, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, Vol. 231, 2000.
7. Goyder, H. Method and Applications of Struc-
tural Modeling from Measured Structural
Frequency Response Data. Journal of Sound
& Vibration. Vol.68(2),1980.
8. Dirlik, T., Ph.D. Thesis. Application of Com-
puters to Fatigue Analysis, Warwick Univer-
sity, 1985.

P
e
a
k

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

m
m
/
s
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
180 184 188 192
Frequency, Hz
FFT Plot for Velocity
196 200 204 208
Initial
Final
Figure 11. After modifcation, the maximum
vibration velocity was reduced drastically
Author
S. Saha is is currently the
head of the piping engineer-
ing dept. at Reliance Refin-
ery (Jamnagar, India; Email:
subratap.saha@ril.com). His
area of specialization is finite
element analysis (FEA), as
well as stress and dynamic
analysis of mechanical and
structural systems. He has
wide consultancy experience
in piping design for the re-
finery, petrochemical and power (both nuclear
and conventional) industries. Dr. Saha holds a
B.Tech. (Hons.) degree in mechanical engineer-
ing from the Indian Institute of Technology
(Kharagpur, India) and a Ph.D. from the Indian
Institute of Technology (Kanpur, India). He has
several publications in international journals
and conferences.
I
n the emerging and ever-expand-
ing areas of bioprocessing, where
maintaining hygienic designs and
practices is of paramount impor-
tance, and semiconductor manufactur-
ing, which has its own stringent purity
requirements, there is a need to stan-
dardize the essential codes and stan-
dards that are available. The goal is to
consistently achieve process systems
that meet the highly refined cleanli-
ness and cleanability requirements
that these industries demand. In ad-
dition to cleanliness and cleanability
requirements, process operators must
integrate safety into all high-purity-
design philosophies and standardiza-
tion efforts.
This article discusses the impor-
tance of, and need for, engineering
codes and standards that govern the
design of high-purity process piping
systems. The focus of this article is the
new Chapter X (High Purity Piping)
that is found in the 2010 issue of the
American Society of Mechanical En-
gineers (ASME) B31.3 Process Piping
code. This chapter deals mainly with
the bioprocessing and semiconductor
industries, but also includes a sub-
set of bioprocessing-related industries,
such as pharmaceuticals manufactur-
ing, biofuels production, food-and-
dairy production and others.
Evolving purity requirements
Early on (in the 1920s), the food-and-
dairy industry, through the coopera-
tive effort of the International As-
sociation of Food Industry Suppliers
(IAFIS; now the Food Processing Sup-
pliers Assn.), the International Assn.
for Food Protection (IAFP), and the
Milk Industry Foundation (MIF)
formed the 3-A Sanitary Standards
organization, or simply 3-A SSI. 3-A
SSI was instrumental in establishing
the first set of standards, protocols
and methodologies to ensure that this
industry could produce food prod-
ucts on a repeatable basis that were
free from pathogenic bacteria. Such
bacteria are potentially derived from
contaminated piping systems as a
result of an inadequate cleanability
design, an insufficient cleaning
regimen, or cross contamination of
dissimilar products.
Until the late 1990s, the food-indus-
try standards that were initiated by
3-A SSI were widely utilized by two
other industry sectors pharmaceu-
ticals and semiconductors that both
require a particularly high degree
of purity throughout their processes
and utility systems, but for very
different reasons.
The pharmaceutical industry, like
the food-and-dairy industry, expends
great effort to design, install and main-
tain its process systems to ensure a
high degree of hygienic purity. In gen-
eral, process systems used by pharma-
ceutical manufacturers require added
care and documentation during both
the manufacture of individual com-
ponents that make up these systems,
and the fabrication and installation
of the complete systems. While the
pharmaceutical and food-and- dairy
industries both require high degrees
of cleanliness, they each have their
own differing set of guidelines on how
to achieve and maintain the desired
cleanliness.
Piping used throughout the semi-
conductor industry, on the other hand,
requires a degree of purity that is
even higher than that required of
the pharmaceutical, food-and-dairy
Solids Processing
It is essential that industry
codes, standards and regulations
keep up with evolving technology
and changing demands of the
chemical process industries
William M. Huitt
W.M. Huitt Co.
Barbara K. Henon
representing Arc Machines, Inc.
Vicencio B. Molina III
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Pristine Processing
Biomass
feedstock
Cellulose
hydrolysis
(sacchari-
fication}
Enzyme
production
Simplified bioethanol process diagram
Glucose
fermentation
Pentose
fermentation
Distribution
Ethanol
product
Lignin
utilization
Pretreatment
Figure 1. CPI manufacturing involving biological or
biochemical processes requires high-purity system design
that provides an environment that is conducive to desired
bacteria while preventing, through its integrated cleanability,
any unwanted bacterial contamination
New Piping Code for
High-Purity Processes
Pristine Processing
industries, but for altogether different
reasons. During semiconductor manu-
facturing, bacterial contamination is
not the driving consideration that it is
in the food-and-dairy, and pharmaceu-
tical industries. Rather, semiconduc-
tor operations have a critical need to
mitigate the potential for particulate
contamination, which can be devas-
tating to todays highly miniaturized
electronic components. Microscopic
particles in semiconductor facilities,
whether coming from equipment, tub-
ing, or the various fluids used during
the manufacture of silicon chips, can
render the chip useless, or at the very
least, out of specification.
In the face of such exacting purity
requirements, the widely used ASME
B31.3 Process Piping code proves its
adaptability, in terms of keeping pace
with changing technology demands
across these varied industry segments.
Three primary segments food-and-
dairy, semiconductor and pharmaceu-
tical have served as initiators and
proponents during the development of
standards to meet the needs of their
respective industries. In particular, the
industry-specific standards developed
by 3-A SSI, Semiconductor Equip-
ments and Materials International
(SEMI), and ASMEs Bioprocessing
Equipment (BPE) Committee led the
way in establishing criteria for the
high-purity component design, system
design, fabrication and installation re-
quirements to meet the needs of these
specific industry sectors. While indi-
vidual, industry-specific codes are in
place, the ASME B31.3 piping code is
also relevant to all of these industries,
as it establishes engineering prac-
tices to ensure piping system integrity
and safety.
While the industry-specific stan-
dards define the particular degree of
purity and cleanability required in
those sectors, and establish the com-
ponent and system designs needed to
meet those requirements, ASME B31.3
has recently expanded its content to
incorporate requirements that estab-
lish structural integrity and safety
parameters for high-purity applica-
tions. In order to meet these integrity
and safety requirements, the reader
or user of an industry-specific stan-
dard can now be referred to the ASME
B31.3 Process Piping Code, and more
specifically to its latest Chapter X.
In an effort to harmonize its efforts
and dovetail seamlessly with the pre-
vailing codes and standards mentioned
above, ASME recognized the fact that
while many of the B31.3 sections and
paragraphs referenced by 3-A, SEMI,
and BPE could be applied appropri-
ately as written, there was concern
that B31.3 did not meet all of the needs
of the bioprocessing and semiconductor
industries, especially when it comes to
high-purity fabrication, examination,
testing and inspection. This was the
impetus for the development of the
new Chapter X addition to the ASME
B31.3 Process Piping code.
Chapter X: High Purity Piping
The ASME B31.3 Process Piping code
has developed over time to become
the preeminent piping code for the
chemical process industries (CPI). The
2008 issue of B31.3 consisted of nine
chapters. Chapters I through VI are
considered to be the base code. These
chapters are essentially written for
metallic piping that is intended for
fluid services that can be categorized
according to what B31.3 defines as
normal and Category D fluid services.
[Authors note: Shortly after the writ-
ing of this article, the 2010 issue of the
ASME B31.3 Process Piping code was
published in March 2011.]
The requirements for nonmetallic
piping and piping lined with nonmetal-
lic materials can be found in Chapter
VII, and are supplemental to the base
code. Nonmetals were initially intro-
duced to the code in its 1976 publica-
tion, but not given their own chapter
until the 1980 publication. The para-
graphs in Chapter VII are numbered
with respect to the paragraphs in the
base code with the added prefix A.
Requirements associated with han-
dling toxic fluids, defined by ASME
B31.3 as Category M fluid services
in Chapter VIII, were first added in
the 1976 publication. This chapter
establishes more-stringent require-
ments for toxic fluid services, and
was also developed to supplement the
base code. The paragraphs in Chapter
VIII are numbered with respect to the
paragraphs in the base code with the
added prefix M.
Chapter IX, added in the 1984 pub-
lication, provides supplemental re-
quirements for operations involving
high-pressure fluids. The paragraphs
in Chapter IX are numbered with re-
spect to the paragraphs in the base
code with the added prefix K.
Adding to those supplemental chap-
ters is the latest Chapter X High Pu-
rity Piping, which is included in the
2010 issue of the ASME B31.3 code (as
noted, the latest issue was published
in March 2011). As in Chapters VII,
VIII, and IX, Chapter X is supplemen-
tal to the base code, so that the respec-
tive base code paragraphs included in
Chapter X carry the added prefix U,
to establish their connection with the
high-purity piping requirements de-
tailed in Chapter X.
Application of Chapter X
As noted, Chapter X is a supplement
to the base code of B31.3. It provides
supplemental recommendations to
augment those paragraphs in the base
code where additional requirements
are needed for high-purity applica-
tions. However, readers should note
that while ASME B31.3 is considered
by many to be the preeminent piping
code, it is not a design guide. Specifi-
cally, as stated in its introduction: The
designer is cautioned that the code is
not a design handbook; it does not do
away with the need for the designer or
for competent engineering judgment.
High-purity fluid service is defined
in B31.3 as A fluid service that re-
quires alternative methods of fabri-
cation, inspection, examination, and
testing not covered elsewhere in the
code with the intent to produce a con-
trolled level of cleanliness. The term
thus applies to piping systems defined
for other purposes as high purity, ultra
high purity, hygienic, or aseptic.
This definition touches on the rele-
vant points in which the requirements
that are spelled out in the supple-
mental B31.3 Chapter X are needed
specifically during the fabrication,
inspection, examination and testing
of high-purity piping systems. How-
ever, depending on the industry- or
case-specific requirements related to
material attributes and specific in-
stallation requirements, the designer
or engineer may need to go beyond
B31.3 Chapter X and refer to the other
industry-specific design requirements,
as mentioned earlier.
Safety considerations
Chapter X in B31.3 also integrates
safety into high-purity piping systems,
by adapting the B31.3 code to incorpo-
rate some preferential, safety-related
nuances that are associated with those
industries that utilize high-purity
piping systems. It does so by adapt-
ing its basic philosophy for safety to
that of the industry-specific compo-
nents, material joining methods, and
purity requirements.
For example, achieving acceptable,
repeatable welds is a key element dur-
ing the fabrication of high-purity pip-
ing systems. These high-purity welds
are accomplished most efficiently by
means of a certified welding operator
using an orbital welder. In addition to
the requirements for acceptable gas
tungsten arc (GTA) welds listed in
B31.3, the user will need to refer to the
criteria for acceptability of these types
OrganizatiOns and standards related tO high-purity piping
3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc. (3-A SSI; 6888 Elm St., Suite 2D,
McLean, VA 22101; 3-a.org)
P3-A 002:2008 Pharmaceutical 3-A Sanitary/Hygienic Stan-
dardsforMaterialsforUseinProcessEquipmentandSystems
P3-A003:2008P3-AEndSuctionCentrifugalPumpsforActive
PharmaceuticalIngredients
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME; Three Park
Ave., New York, NY 10016-5990; asme.org)
ASMEB31.32008and2010editions
ASME-BioprocessingEquipment(BPE)Standard2009
American Welding Society (AWS; 550 N.W. LeJeune Rd.,
Miami, FL 33126; aws.org)
AWS D18.1 Specification for Welding of Austenitic Stainless
SteelTubeandPipeSystemsinSanitary(Hygienic)Applications
International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineers (ISPE; 3109
W. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Suite 250, Tampa, FL
33607-6240; ispe.org)
ISPEBaselinePharmaceutical&EngineeringBaselineGuide
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI;
805 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94043;
semi.org)
SEMI E49.8-2003 Guide for High-Purity and Ultrahigh Pu-
rity Gas Distribution Systems in Semiconductor Manufacturing
Equipment
SEMI F1-96 Specification for Leak Integrity of High-Purity Gas
PipingSystemsandComponents
SEMI F19-0310 Specification for the Surface Condition of the
WettedSurfacesofStainlessSteelComponents
SEMI F200706E Specification for 316L Stainless Steel Bar,
Forgings, Extruded Shapes, Plate, and Tubing for Components
Used in General Purpose, High Purity and UltraHigh Purity
SemiconductorManufacturingApplications
SEMIF221102GuideforGasDistributionSystems
SEMIF780703PracticeforGasTungstenArc(GTA)Welding
of Fluid Distribution Systems in Semiconductor Manufacturing
Applications
SEMI F811103 Specification for Visual Inspection and Ac-
ceptanceofGasTungstenArc(GTA)WeldsinFluidDistribution
SystemsinSemiconductorManufacturingApplications
EASY INSTALLATION
ho holes in tanks or pipes
Awa] from sensitive processes
VERSATILE
0ne size adjusts to motors, from
small up to 15Ohp
works on 8 phase, fxed or variaole
frequenc], DC and single phase power
SENSITIVE
1O times more sensitive than
just sensing amps
CONVENIENT OUTPUTS
For meters, controllers, computers
4-2O milliamps O-1O volts
MONITOR VISCOSITY SIMPLY
CALL NOW FOR YOUR FREE 30-DAY TRIAL 888-600-3247
SENSE MIXER MOTOR HORSEPOWER
WITH UNIVERSAL POWER CELL
24
0
22
20
18
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
16

POWER DECREASE
SHOWS BATCH
IS DONE
BEGIN HIGH
SPEED MIX
ADD LIQUID
LOW SPEED
DRY MIX
HIGH SPEED
BATCH 1 BATCH 2 BATCH 3
POWER
SENSOR
MIXER
MOTOR
Power changes refect viscosit] changes
0ood oatches will ft the normal "profle" for
that product
PROFILING A PROCESS
WWW.LOADCONTROLS.COM
Pristine Processing
of welds as defined in ASME-BPE, or
the respective SEMI standards.
Biochemical processes. The addi-
tion of Chapter X could not be more
timely. Over the past few decades, the
breadth and depth of bioprocessing
operations has continued to grow. For
instance, the growth of the biofuels
industry, coupled with the introduc-
tion of many new and evolving bio-
technology-based processes through-
out the CPI, has increased demand
for process systems that are able to
reliably handle biologics, both refined
and industrial, while controlling
the risk of contamination. This has
pushed the demand for high-purity-
system design beyond the boundaries
of the pharmaceutical industry, and
has cascaded into industries that are
typically unfamiliar with the need for
system cleanability.
Biochemical processes utilizing hy-
brid cellulase enzymes and bacteria as
catalysts demand a very different set of
design guidelines compared to chemical
processes that do not use living organ-
isms. During biochemical processing,
operators must maintain an environ-
ment that ensures that the specialized
enzymes and bacteria can thrive and
perform their consumption and pro-
cessing of the pretreated feedstock.
However, efforts to maintain an
environment that is conducive to
the survival of the intended bacteria
and enzymes also creates a suitable
environment for unwanted bacteria
to thrive. If the proper steps are not
taken throughout the process, a pro-
liferation of unwanted bacteria can
devastate colonies of the desired bac-
teria, ruining the process. Specifically,
efforts to prevent the contamination of
a biochemical process, such as the one
shown in Figure 1, requires a system
design that is conducive to clean-in-
place (CIP) or steam-in-place (SIP) ca-
pabilities (Note: SIP systems are often
also defined as sterilize-in-place or
sanitize-in-place systems; the terms
are considered to be synonymous).
Figure 1 shows the key stages in
the biochemical manufacture of etha-
nol. The only segments of this process
that would require high-purity-piping
design concepts are those that handle
the enzymes (the primary catalyst en-
zymes for the process), namely in the
enzyme production (if the enzymes
are produced onsite rather than out-
sourced), saccharification and fermen-
tation steps of the process.
Readers should note that the term
high-purity, in the case of Figure 1,
should not be misconstrued as an ap-
plication for hygienic piping. During
the production of ethanol, for example,
the process system does not need to
achieve a hygienic-level of cleanliness.
But, it does have to be cleanable from
an engineering standpoint.
This is where ASME B31.3 Chapter
X and BPE work well together, by es-
tablishing acceptable design and fab-
rication requirements that are needed
to achieve a cleanable system. These
include criteria that define acceptable
welds, surface finishes, mechanical
joint connections, required slope, ex-
amination requirements and more.
Semiconductor manufacturing.
Unlike bioprocessing operations, the
semiconductor industry has a rela-
tively narrow bandwidth of technologi-
cal requirements that are used by other
industries. Specifically, the high degree
of purity, testing and the extremely
sensitive instrumentation required by
semiconductor manufacturers do not
readily translate into practical use by
many other industries. Thus, the semi-
conductor industry is relatively auton-
omous in that respect.
With some semiconductor manu-
facturers producing chips with di-
mensions at the 32-nanometer (nm)
level, and research going on at the
15-nm level, it is easy to see why the
design, fabrication, and maintenance
practices required to ensure exacting
purity requirements of their process
fluid distribution systems are of para-
mount importance.
During semiconductor device fabri-
cation, a variety of ultrahigh purity
gases and chemicals are used during
many of the processing steps, such as
dry etching, wet etching, plasma etch-
ing, chemical vapor deposition, physi-
cal vapor deposition, and chemical-me-
chanical planarization. Engineering
steps must be taken to ensure that
these fluids be of ultrahigh purity, and
must ensure that all associated tubing
and components that distribute these
fluids be maintained in an ultra-high-
purity mode, as well.
To meet these demands, semiconduc-
tor manufacturers can now use B31.3
Chapter X in conjunction with the pre-
vailing SEMI standards, as these two
documents bring together the neces-
sary criteria to establish acceptable de-
sign attributes, acceptable materials of
construction, fabrication quality, test-
ing protocols, validation, examination
and inspection requirements.
The impact of Chapter X
As mentioned earlier, the addition
of Chapter X to the content of B31.3
could not be timelier. Chapter X aug-
ments not only the B31.3 base code,
but the ASME-BPE, ISPE baseline
guide, and SEMI standards, as well,
at a time when all of these high-purity
industries are undergoing significant
changes and facing more-rigorous pu-
rity requirements than ever before.
This preliminary movement of the
ASME B31.3 piping code into the realm
of high-purity process requirements is
just an initial step. Once a segment of
industry is adopted by ASME in such
a manner, it adds a whole new level of
thinking and evaluation to the stan-
dardization of that high-purity indus-
try. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) accreditation pro-
gram. to which ASME adheres, legiti-
mizes the standardization process and
institutes an ongoing review process,
which brings fresh new insights and
technological advances to the con-
tinuing evolution of the industries
it touches.
In general, many of the standards
that have been developed specifically
for high-purity industries have been
driven and guided by the participa-
tion of active standards-development
committee members, who are directly
associated with the pharmaceutical
and semiconductor industries. The
addition of Chapter X invites the in-
volvement of a more-diverse array of
experts from a broader group of indus-
tries (for instance, the biofuels indus-
try and other CPI sectors) that also
have demanding purity and cleanabil-
ity requirements. This promises to
bring new vision and cross-industry
collaboration when it comes to the on-
going evolution of high-purity piping-
system standardization.
Edited by Suzanne Shelley
Acknowledgements
The following individuals provided invaluable
input during the development of this article:
Philip Guerrieri, Sr., president of Integrated
Mechanical Services, Inc., Phillip E. Robinson,
Consultant to Parker Hannifin, LLC, Gerald A.
Babuder, Swagelok Co., and Kenneth A. Nisly-
Nagele, Archer Daniels Midland Co.

Authors
W. M. (Bill) Huitt is presi-
dent of W.M. Huitt Co., a pip-
ing consulting firm founded
in 1987 (P.O. Box 31154,
St. Louis, MO 63131-0154;
Phone: 314-966-8919;
Cell: 314-330-4068; Email:
wmhuitt@wmhuittco.com). He
has been involved in industrial
piping design, engineering and
construction since 1965. Prior
positions have included design
engineer, piping design instructor, project engineer,
project supervisor, piping department supervisor,
engineering manager. His experience covers both
the engineering and construction fields and crosses
industry lines to include petroleum refining, the
production of chemicals, petrochemicals, pharma-
ceuticals, pulp & paper, nuclear power, biofuels,
and coal gasification. He has written numerous
specifications, guidelines, papers, and magazine
articles on the topic of pipe design and engineering.
Huitt is a member of ISPE (International Society
Society of Mechanical Engineers). He is a member
of three ASME-BPE subcommittees, several Task
Groups, ASME B31.3 Subgroup H on High Purity
Piping, API Task Group on RP-2611, and sits on
two corporate specification review boards. He also
serves on the advisory board for the ChemInnova-
tions Conference.
Barbara K. Henon is a con-
tract employee for Arc Ma-
chines, Inc., a manufacturer of
orbital GTAW tube and pipe
welding equipment (Arc Ma-
chines, Inc., 10500 Orbital Way,
Pacoima, CA 91331). She holds
a Ph.D. in biological sciences
from the University of Southern
California. She has more than
15 years of experience training
orbital welding operators and
engineers for high-purity applications in the phar-
maceutical and semiconductor industries. Henon
is a member of ISPE and has been an instructor
at the annual ASME Bioprocess Technology Semi-
nars since 1989. Henon is the former vice chair of
the ASME Bioprocessing Equipment (BPE) Main
Committee, and is a current member of the BPE
Materials Joining, Surface Finishes, and General
Requirements Subcommittees, as well as the BPE
Main Committee and Executive Committee. She is a
member of the ASME B31.3 Process Piping Section
Committee, and a member of Subgroup H that de-
veloped Chapter X High Purity Piping for the ASME
B31.3 Process Piping Code. Henon is also active on
the AWS D18 and D10 Standards writing commit-
tees and was on the committee for writing the SEMI
F81 and SEMI F78 standards for orbital welding of
semiconductor-fluid-distribution systems.
Vicencio B. (Vince) Mo-
lina III is an engineering
manager for the HYCO PST
of Air Products & Chemicals,
Inc. (555 West Arrow High-
way, Claremont CA 91711;
Phone: (909)447-3976, Email:
molinav@airproducts.com).
He has been a member of the
ASME Section Committee
since 1997, and is currently
the chairman of ASME B31.3
Subgroup on High Purity Piping.
WSMC-Comi-Condor-Tomoe 1-3 page Black & Blue - Chem Eng (r... https://nymail.accessintel.com/exchange/jcooke/Inbox/Fwd:%20eme...
1 of 1 1/13/10 9:27 PM
S
ince 1956 the employees of Mueller
Steam Specialty have been dedi-
cated to the manufacture of high quality
products delivered on time and with
superior customer service. Our core line
of rugged strainers is available in a wide
range of types and materials. Whether you
require basket strainers, Y strainers,
Tee type strainers, duplex strain-
ers, or even temporary strainers, Mueller
will deliver your order from stock or cus-
tom engineer and manufacture it to your
requirements. In addition to its strainer line,
Mueller offers a full line of check valves,
butterfly valves, pump protection and
specialty products for a variety of industries
and applications. Choose Mueller Steam
Specialty for your next project.
A Watts Water Technologies Company
I
ncorporating fire safety into plant
design takes on two fundamental
goals: to prevent the occurrence
of fire and to protect the initially
uninvolved piping and equipment
long enough for operations person-
nel to perform their duties and for
emergency responders to get the fire
under control. While it is impractical
to completely eliminate the potential
risk of an accidental fire in a complex
process-plant facility that is expected
to handle and process hazardous
chemicals, it is reasonable to assume
that certain aspects of design can be
incorporated to reduce that risk.
Designing facilities that use and
store hazardous chemicals requires
a demanding set of requirements, at
times beyond what can practically be
written into industry codes and stan-
dards. It is ultimately the responsi-
bility of the engineer of record (EOR)
and the owner to fill in those blanks
and to read between the lines of the
adopted codes and standards to cre-
ate a safe operating environment,
one that minimizes the opportunity
for fire and its uncontrolled spread
and damage.
This article will not delve into the
various trigger mechanisms of how a
fire might get started in a process fa-
cility, but will instead discuss contain-
ment and control of the fuel component
of a fire that resides in piping systems
that contain combustible, explosive or
flammable fluids.
In the design of piping systems con-
taining such fluids, there are critical
aspects that need additional consid-
erations beyond those involved in the
design of piping systems containing
non-hazardous fluids. There are two
key safety aspects that need to be
incorporated into the design, namely
system integrity and fire safety.
System integrity
System integrity describes an expecta-
tion of engineering that is integrated
into the design of a piping system in
which the selected material of con-
struction (MOC), system joint design,
valve selection, examination require-
ments, design, and installation have
all been engineered and performed in a
manner that instills the proper degree
of integrity into a piping system. While
this approach is certainly needed for
the piping design of so-called normal
fluid service it is absolutely critical for
hazardous fluid systems.
The design of any piping system, haz-
ardous or non-hazardous, is based, in
large part, on regulations and industry
accepted standards published by such
organizations as the American Soci-
ety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
and the American Petroleum Institute
(API). The standards published by
these organizations include tables that
establish joint-pressure ratings based
on MOC and temperature. Where the
joint-design consideration for hazard-
ous fluid services departs from that of
non-hazardous fluid services is in gas-
ket and seal material specifications.
This is due to the need for sealing
material to contain hazardous chemi-
cals for as long as possible while sur-
rounded by a fire or in close proximity
to a fire. The effect of heat from a fire on
an otherwise uninvolved piping system
can only be delayed for a relatively short
period of time. And the first thing to fail
will be the mechanical type joints.
Depending on the type of fire and
whether the piping is directly in the
fire or in close proximity, the window of
opportunity, prior to joint seal failure,
for an emergency response team to get
the fire under control is anywhere from
a few hours to less than 30 minutes. As
you will see, a number of factors dictate
the extent of that duration in time.
A system in which the gasket mate-
rial is selected on the basis of material
compatibility, design pressure, and
design temperature may only require
a solid fluoropolymer. In a fire, this
non-metallic material would readily
melt, allowing the contents of the pipe
to discharge from the joint once sealed
by the gasket. Specifying a gasket that
is better suited to hold up in a fire for
a longer period of time gives the emer-
gency responders time to bring the ini-
tial fire under control, making it quite
possible to avoid a major catastrophe.
Fire-safe system
Preventing the potential for a fire
requires operational due diligence
as well as a proper piping-material
specification. However, controlling
and restricting the spread of fire
goes beyond that. Results of the as-
sessment reports of catastrophic
events coming from the U. S. Chemi-
cal Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board (CSB; Washington, D.C.) have
shown that many of the occurrences
of catastrophic incidents have actu-
ally played out through a complex
set of circumstances resulting from
design flaws, instrumentation prob-
lems, pipe modifications, inadequate
fire-proofing and human error.
Events, such as a fire, are not neces-
sarily then the result of a hazardous
fluid simply escaping through a leaky
joint and then coming into contact with
an ignition source. There are usually a
complex set of events leading up to a
fire incident. Its subsequent spread,
Feature Report
Feature Report
William M. Huitt
W.M. Huitt Co.
Piping Design for
Hazardous Fluid Service
Extra considerations and precautions are needed
beyond the requirements of codes and standards
into a possible catastrophic event, can
then be the result of inadequate de-
sign requirements that extend beyond
the piping itself.
While this discussion touches only
on piping issues, know that this is
only a part of the overall integration
of safety into the design of a facility
that handles hazardous fluids. What
follows are recommended piping de-
sign considerations that are intended
to substantially reduce the risk of
the onset of fire and its uncontrol-
lable spread throughout a facility. In
discussing the spread of fire, it will
be necessary to include discussion re-
garding the needs for disciplines other
than piping, namely fire proofing of
structural steel.

General codes and standards
From a fire-safety standpoint, some
requirements and industry regula-
tions are stipulated in the Interna-
tional Fire Code (IFC), published by
the International Code Conference
(ICC) under IFC 3403.2.6.6. There are
also requirements by the National Fire
Protection Assn. (NFPA) under NFPA
1 and NFPA 30. Test requirements for
fire-rated valves can be found under
API 607 Fire Test for Soft Seated
Quarter Turn Valves. Starting with
the 4th edition of this API standard,
it was added that, among other things,
the tested valve has to be operated
from fully closed to fully open after
the fire test. Prior to the 4th edition
a soft-seated fire-rated valve had to
only remain sealed when exposed to
fire without having to be operated, or
rotated. Additional fire test require-
ments can be found as published by the
BSI Group (formerly known as British
Standards Institution) as BS-6755-2
Testing of Valves. Specification for
Fire Type-Testing Requirements, and
FM Global FM-7440 Approval Stan-
dard for Firesafe Valves.
With exception to the specific re-
quirements covered in the valve test-
IncIdent no. 1
Valero-McKee refInery,
Sunray, tex., feb. 16, 2007
W
ithout going into great detail as to the cir-
cumstances that led up to this incident, piping
handling liquid propane in a propane deas-
phalting (PDA) unit ruptured. The location of the rup-
ture was in a section of isolated piping that had been
abandoned in place several years prior. A valve, in-
tended to isolate the active flow of liquid propane from
the abandoned-in-place piping, had been unknow-
ing left partially open due to an obstruction inside the
valve. Water had gradually seeped in past the valve
seat over the years and being heavier than the liquid
propane, settled at a low-point control station where
it eventually froze during a cold period. The expand-
ing ice inside the pipeline subsequently cracked the
pipe. When the temperature outside began to warm,
the ice thawed allowing liquid propane to escape
from the active pipeline, through the partially closed
valve, and out the now substantial crack. The resul-
tant cloud of propane gas drifted toward a boiler
house where it found an ignition source. The flame of
the ignited gas cloud tracked back toward its source
where the impending shockwave from the explosion
ripped apart piping attached to the PDA extractor
columns causing ignited propane to erupt from one
of the now opened nozzles on the column at such a
velocity as to create a jet fire.
The ensuing jet fire, which is a blow-torch like
flame, discharged toward a main pipe rack approxi-
mately 77 ft away, engulfing the pipe rack in the jet fire. As the
temperature of the non-fire-proofed structural steel of the pipe rack
reached its plastic range and began to collapse in on itself, the
piping in the rack, which contained additional flammable liquids,
collapsed along with it (Figure 1).
Due to the loss of support and the effect of the heat, the pipes in
the pipe rack, unable to support its own weight, began to sag. The
allowable bending load eventually being exceeded from the force
of its unsupported weight, the rack piping ruptured spilling its flam-
mable contents into the already catastrophic fire. The contents of
the ruptured piping, adding more fuel to the fire, caused the flames
to erupt into giant fireballs and thick black smoke.
The non-fire-proofed support steel (seen on the left in Figure 1
and on the right in Figure 2) was actually in compliance with API
recommendations. Those recommendations can be found in Pub-
lication 2218 Fireproofing Practices in Petroleum and Petro-
chemical Processing Plants; API Publications 2510 Design and
Construction of LPG Installations; and 2510A Fire-Protection
Considerations for the Design and Operation of Liquefied Petro-
leum Gas (LPG) Storage Facilities. In these issues of the publica-
tions it was recommended that pipe-rack support steel within 50 ft
of an LPG vessel be fire proofed. The collapsed support steel was
approximately 77 ft from the extractor columns, which is beyond
the 50-ft recommended distance.
While the EOR was in compliance with the governing code, with
regard to fire proofing, there may have been a degree of compla-
cency in defaulting to that minimum requirement. This goes back
to a point made earlier in which it was said that industry standards
are not intended to be design manuals. They instead provide,
the minimum requirements necessary to integrate safety into the
design, fabrication, inspection, installation, and testing of pip-
ing systems Proprietary circumstances make it the imperative
responsibility of the EOR or the owner to make risk assessments
based on specific design conditions and go beyond the minimum
requirements of an industry code or standard when the assessment
results and good engineering practices dictate.
Figure 1. A collapsed pipe rack as a result of heat from a jet fame
Figure 2. The same collapsed pipe rack as Figure 1 seen from above
Feature Report
ing standards, the codes and standards
mentioned above provide generalized
requirements that touch on such key
aspects of safety as relative equip-
ment location, mass volume versus
risk, electrical classifications, valving,
and so on. They cannot, and they are
not intended to provide criteria and
safeguards for every conceivable situa-
tion. Designing safety into a particular
piping system containing a hazardous
liquid goes beyond what should be ex-
pected from an industry-wide code or
standard and falls to the responsibil-
ity of the owner or EOR. As ASME
B31.3 states in its introduction, The
designer is cautioned that the code is
not a design handbook; it does not do
away with the need for the designer or
for competent engineering judgment.
When designing piping systems to
carry hazardous liquids, the design
basis of a project or an established
protocol for maintenance needs to
incorporate a mitigation strategy
against two worse-case scenarios: (a)
A leak at a pipe joint containing a
hazardous liquid, and (b) The rupture
or loss of containment, during a fire,
of surrounding hazardous piping sys-
tems, not otherwise compromised that
would add fuel to the fire.
The occurrence of those two fail-
ures, one initiating the incident and
the other perpetuating and sustain-
ing the incident, can be minimized or
eliminated by creating a design basis
that provides the following:
Addedassuranceagainstthepoten-
tial for joint failure
Added assurance of containment
and control of a hazardous liquid
during a fire
Safe evacuation of a hazardous liq-
uid from the operating unit under
distress
Fire prevention through design
Piping joints. When designing pip-
ing systems to contain hazardous liq-
uids, one of the key objectives for the
design engineer should be taking the
necessary steps to minimize the threat
of a leak, steps beyond those typically
necessary in complying with the mini-
mum requirements of a code. There are
certainly other design issues that war-
rant consideration, and they will be
touched on much later. However, while
the pipe, valves, and instrumentation
all have to meet the usual criteria of
material compatibility, pressure, and
temperature requirements there are
added concerns and cautions that need
to be addressed.
Those concerns and cautions are
related to the added assurance that
hazardous liquids will stay contained
within their piping system during
normal operation and for a period of
time during a fire as expressed in such
standards as API-607, FM-7440, and
BS-6755-2. Designing a system, start
to finish, with the intent to minimize
or eliminate altogether the potential
for a hazardous chemical leak will
greatly help in reducing the risk of fire.
If there is no fuel source there is no
fire. In the design of a piping system,
leak prevention begins with an assess-
ment of the piping and valve joints.
There are specified minimum re-
quirements for component ratings,
examination, inspection, and testing
that are required for all fluid services.
Beyond that, there is no guidance
given for fire safety with regard to the
piping code other than a statement in
B31.3 Para. F323.1 in which it states,
in part: The following are some gen-
eral considerations that should be
evaluated when selecting and applying
materials in piping: (a) the possibility
of exposure of the piping to fire and
the melting point, degradation tem-
perature, loss of strength at elevated
temperature, and combustibility of the
piping material under such exposure,
(b) the susceptibility to brittle failure
or failure from thermal shock of the
piping material when exposed to fire
or to fire-fighting measures, and possi-
ble hazards from fragmentation of the
material in the event of failure, (c) the
ability of thermal insulation to protect
piping against failure under fire expo-
sure (for example, its stability, fire re-
sistance, and ability to remain in place
during a fire).
The code does not go into specifics on
this matter. It is the engineers respon-
sibility to raise the compliance-level
requirements to a higher degree where
added safety is warranted and to define
the compliance criteria in doing so.
Joints in a piping system are its
weak points. All joints, except for the
full penetration buttweld, will de-rate
a piping system to a pre-determined
or calculated value based on the type
of joint. This applies to pipe longitudi-
nal weld seams, circumferential welds,
flange joints and valve joints such as
the body seal, stem packing, and bon-
net seal, as well as the valve seat.
For manufactured longitudinal weld
seams, refer to ASME B31.3 Table
A-1B for quality factors (E) of the
various types of welds used to manu-
facture welded pipe. The quality factor
is a rating value, as a percentage, of
the strength value of the longitudinal
weld in welded pipe. It is used in wall
thickness calculations as in the follow-
ing equations for straight pipe under
internal pressure:
(1)
(2)
Where:
c = sum of mechanical allowances
D = outside dia. of pipe
d = inside dia. of pipe
E = quality factor from Table A-1A
and A-1B
P = internal design gage pressure
S = stress value for material from
Table A-1
t = pressure design thickness
W = weld-joint strength-reduction
factor
y = coefficient from Table 304.1.1
Also found in Para. 304 of B31.3 are
wall thickness equations for curved
and mitered pipe.
With regard to circumferential
welds, the designer is responsible
for assigning a weld-joint reduction
factor (W) for welds other than lon-
gitudinal welds. What we can do, at

PTFE
envelope
Profiled
inner ring
Monel*
windings
* Monel is a registered trademark of international Nickel
Primary
sealing
element
Secondary
sealing element
Flexible
graphite filler
Carbon steel
outer ring
Figure 3. If fanged
joints are necessary, it is
suggested that fre-safe
spiral-wound type gas-
kets with graphite fller
be specifed
least for this discussion, is to provide,
as a frame of reference, some quality
rankings for the various circumfer-
ential welds based on the stress in-
tensification factor (SIF) assigned to
them by B31.3. In doing so, the full
penetration buttweld is considered
to be as strong as the pipe with an
SIF = 1.0. The double fillet weld at a
slip-on flange has an SIF = 1.2. The
socketweld joint has a SIF = 2.1. Any
value in excess of 1.0 will de-rate the
strength of the joint below that of the
pipe. With that said, and assuming
an acceptable weld, the weld joint,
and particularly the full penetration
buttweld, is still the joint with the
highest degree of integrity. In a fire,
the last joint type to fail will be the
welded joint.
The threaded joint has an SIF =
2.3 and requires a thread sealant
applied to the threads, upon assem-
bly, to maintain seal integrity. With
flame temperatures in a fire of around
2,7003,000F the thread sealant will
become completely useless if not va-
porized, leaving bare threads with no
sealant to maintain a seal at the joint.
The flange-joint-sealing integrity,
like the threaded joint, is dependent
upon a sealant, which, unlike the
threaded joint, is a gasket. Flange
bolts act as springs, providing a con-
stant live load so long as all things
remain constant. Should the gasket
melt or flow due to the heat of a fire,
the initial tension that was given the
bolts when the joint was assembled
will be lost. Once the gasket has been
compromised the sealing integrity of
the joint is gone.
Knowing that the mechanical type
threaded and flange joints are the
weak points in a piping system, and
the primary source for leaks, it is sug-
gested that their use be minimized to
the greatest extent possible. Consider
the following design points:
Donotspecifyflangejointssolelyfor
installation purposes
Specify flange joints only where re-
quired for equipment connections
and for break-out spools
IncIdent no. 2: forMoSa PlaStIcS corP.,
PoInt coMfort, tex., oct. 6, 2005
A
trailer being towed by a forklift operator
down a pipe rack alley in the Olefins II
operating unit of Formosas Point Comfort
facility attempted to back the trailer up into an
open area between pipe rack support columns
in an effort to turn the rig around. When the
operator, in the process of pulling back into
the pathway, began to pull forward the trailer
struck a protruding 2-in. blow-down valve on
a vertically mounted Y-strainer that was con-
nected to a 4-in. NPS liquid propylene line
subsequently ripping the valve and nipple
from the strainer (Figure 4). Liquid propylene
under 216 psig pressure immediately began
discharging into a liquid pool from the 2-in. opening and partially
vaporizing into a flammable cloud.
The flammable cloud eventually found an ignition source, ignited
and exploded, in-turn igniting the pool of liquid propylene. The
fire burned directly under the pipe rack and an attached elevated
structure containing process equipment and piping. About 30 min
into the event, non-fire-proofed steel sections of the pipe rack and
the elevated structure containing process equipment collapsed
(Figure 5). The collapse caused the rupture of equipment and ad-
ditional piping containing flammable liquids, adding more fuel to
an already catastrophic fire. The flare header was also crimped in
the collapse and ruptured, causing flow that should have gone to
the flare stack to be discharged into the heart of the fire. The fire
burned for five days.
Again, as in Incident No. 1, you can see in Figure 5 the result
of insufficient fire proofing of steel beams and columns in close
proximity to process units. And fire protection does not apply
only to vertical columns. As you can see, it is not sufficiently
effective to have the vertical columns protected while the hori-
zontal support steel is left unprotected and susceptible to the heat
from a fire.
Another key factor in the Formosa fire was the ambiguous deci-
sion by the designer to orient the Y-strainer blow-down in such a
position of vulnerability. While there is absolutely nothing wrong
with installing the Y-strainer in the vertical position, as this one
was, they are normally installed in a horizontal position with the
blow-down at the bottom, inadvertently making it almost impos-
sible to accidentally strike it with enough force to dislodge the
valve and nipple.
However, orienting the blow-down in such a manner, about the
vertical axis, should have initiated the need to evaluate the risk and
make the determination to rotate the blow-down about its vertical
axis to a less vulnerable location, or to provide vehicle protection
around the blow-down in the form of concrete and steel stanchions.
Both of these precautionary adjustments were overlooked.
The plant did perform a hazard and operability study (HAZOP)
and a pre-startup safety review (PSSR) of the Olefins II operating
unit. In the CSB report, with regard to process piping and equip-
ment, it was stated that, During the facility siting analysis, the
hazard analysis team [Formosa] discussed what might occur if a
vehicle (for instance, fork truck, crane, man lift) impacted process
piping. While the consequences of a truck impact were judged
as severe, the frequency of occurrence was judged very low
(that is, not occurring within 20 years), resulting in a low overall
risk rank [The ranking considered both the potential consequences
and likely frequency of an event]. Because of the low risk ranking,
the team considered existing administrative safeguards adequate
and did not recommend additional traffic protection.
4-in. Propylene
product line
Strainer
Pipe
nipple
2 ft
C
o
l
u
m
n
Figure 5. Collapse of non-fre-proofed structural steel
Figure 4. The impact point (left)
showing the damaged Y-strainer
Feature Report
If a lined pipe system is required,
use the type requiring the liner to be
fused, a coupling installed and one
that is suitable for multi-axis bending
Threaded joints should be limited
to instrument connections and then
only if the instrument is not avail-
able with a flange or welded connec-
tion. If a threaded connection is used,
it should be assembled without thread
compound then seal-welded. This may
require partial dismantling of the in-
strument to protect it from the heat of
the welding process.
It is recommended that piping sys-
tems be welded as much as possible and
flanged joints be minimized as much as
possible. That includes using welded
end valves and inline components
where possible. If flanged joints are
necessary for connecting to equipment
nozzles, flanged valves, inline compo-
nents, or needed for break-out joints, it
is suggested that a spiral-wound type
gasket with graphite filler be specified.
This material can withstand tempera-
tures upwards of 3,000F. There are
also gasket designs that are suitable
for when a fluoropolymer material is
needed for contact with the chemical,
while also holding up well in a fire.
These are gaskets similar in design to
that shown in Figure 3.
Valves. A fire-rated valve meeting the
requirements of API 607 (Fire Test
for Soft Seated Quarter Turn Valves)
is designed and tested to assure the
prevention of fluid leakage both inter-
nally along the valves flow path, and
externally through the stem packing,
bonnet seal, and body seal (where a
multi-piece body is specified). Testing
under API 607 subjects a valve to well
defined and controlled fire conditions.
It requires that after exposure to the
fire test the valve shall be in a con-
dition that will allow it to be rotated
from its closed position to its fully
open position using only the manual
operator fitted to the test valve.
Quarter turn describes a type of
valve that goes from fully closed to
fully open within the 90 deg rotation
of its operator. It includes such valve
types as ball, plug, and butterfly with
a valve seat material of fluoropolymer,
elastomer, or some other soft, non-me-
tallic material.
Standards such as FM-7440 and
BS-6755-2, touched on earlier, apply
to virtually any valve type that com-
plies with their requirements. Under
the FM and BS standards, valve
types such as gates, globes, and pis-
ton valves with metal seats can also
make excellent fire-rated valves when
using a body and bonnet gasket and
stem packing material similar in tem-
perature range to that of a graphite or
graphite composite.
Process systems. At the onset of a fire
within an operating unit, initially un-
affected process piping systems should
not be a contributor to sustaining and
spreading what is already a potentially
volatile situation. There are basic de-
sign concepts that can be incorporated
into the physical aspects of a process
system that will, at the very least, pro-
vide precious time for operators and
emergency responders to get the situ-
ation under control. In referring to the
simplified piping and instrumentation
diagram (P&ID) in Figure 6, there are
seven main points to consider:
1. Flow supply (Line A), coming from
the fluids source outside the operat-
ing unit, needs to be remotely shut off
to the area that is experiencing a fire
2. The flow path at the systems use point
valves (VA-1) needs to remain open
3. The flow path at drain and vent valves
(VA-2) needs to remain sealed
4. The external path through stem
packing and body seals needs to re-
main intact during a fire
5. The bottom outlet valve (XV-2) on a
vessel containing a flammable liq-
uid should have an integral fusible
link for automatic shut-off, with its
valve seat, stem packing and body
seals remaining intact during a fire
6. Pipeline A should be sloped to allow
all liquid to drain into the vessel
7. The liquid in the vessel should be
pumped out to a safe location until
the fusible link activates, closing the
valve. There should be an interlock
notifying the control room and shut-
ting down the pump
Those seven points, with the help of
the P&ID in Figure 6, are explained
as follows:
Point 1. The supply source, or any
pipeline supplying the operating unit
with a flammable liquid, should have
an automated, fire-rated isolation
valve (XV-1) located outside the build-
ing or operating unit area and linked
to the units alarm system with remote
on/off operation (from a safe location)
at a minimum.
Point 2. Any point-of-use valve (VA-1)
at a vessel should remain open dur-
ing a fire. The area or unit isolation
valve (XV-1) will stop further flow to
the system, but any retained or re-
sidual fluid downstream of the auto-
matic shut-off valve needs to drain to
the vessel where the increasing over-
pressure, due to heat from the fire,
will be relieved to a safe location, such
as a flare stack, through RD-1. If the
Valves, XV-1 and VA-1, are closed in a
fire situation the blocked-in fluid in a
heated pipeline will expand and poten-
tially rupture the pipeline; first at the
mechanical joints such as seals and
packing glands on valves and equip-
ment, as well as flange joints, and then
ultimately the pipe itself will rupture
(catastrophic failure). During a fire, ex-
panding liquids and gases should have
an unobstructed path through the pip-
ing to a vessel that is safely vented.
Point 3. Valves at vents and drains
(VA-2 & VA-6) need to be fire-rated and
remain closed with seals and seat intact
for as long as possible during a fire.
Discharge
to safe area
SG-1
XV-2
VA-2
VA-3
VA-5
VA-6
XV-4 XV-3
PG-1
VA-4
VA-1
LT-1
XV-1
RD-1
Line D
Line C
Operating unit
battery limits
Line B
Pump
Line A
Slope
Flammable
liquid in
Flammable
liquid to
recovery
Flammable
liquid out
Figure 6. A simplifed P&ID used in the discussion about process systems
Point 4. During a fire, another source
for valve leakage is by way of stem
packing and body seal, as mentioned
earlier. Leakage, at these seal points,
can be prevented with valves that are
not necessarily fire-rated, but contain
stem packing and body seal gasket
material specified as an acceptable
form of graphite (flexible graphite,
graphoil and so on). This is a fire-safe
material which is readily available in
non-fire-rated valves.
Point 5. The valve on the bottom of
the vessel should be fire-rated with a
fusible link or a fail closed position.
Relying on an air or electric operated
valve actuator may not be practical. A
fusible link is most certainly needed
on a manually operated valve. The
contents of a vessel containing a haz-
ardous liquid needs to get pumped to
a safe location during a fire until such
time as the fusible link is activated,
closing the tank bottom valve, or the
pump fails. All valved gage and instru-
ment connections (SG-1) mounted on
a vessel should have a graphite-type
stem packing and body-seal-gasket
material at a minimum. Flange gas-
kets at these gage and instrument con-
nections should be of a spiral-wound
fire-safe gasket type similar to those
mentioned earlier. Specialty tank-
bottom valves (XV-2) should be given
special consideration in their design
by considering a metal-to-metal seat,
or a piston valve design along with
fire-rated seal material.
Point 6. As mentioned in Point 2, the
residual fluid in Line A, after flow has
been stopped, should be drained to
the vessel. To help the liquid drain,
the pipeline should be sloped toward
the vessel. The intent, as mentioned
above, is to prevent sections of any
IncIdent no. 3: bP refInery,
texaS cIty, tex., July 8, 2005
I
n the design layout of a duplex heat-
exchanger arrangement (Figure 7) in the
resid-hydrotreater unit of the BP Refinery in
Texas City, Tex., the designer duplicated the
fabrication dimensions of the 90-deg fabri-
cated elbow-spool assemblies shown in Fig-
ure 7 as Elbows 1, 2, and 3. While the pipe
sizes and equipment nozzle sizes were the
same, permitting an interchangeability of the
fabricated elbow spool assemblies, the service
conditions prohibited such an interchange.
The shell side conditions on the upstream
side (at Elbow 1) were 3,000 psig at 400F.
The shell side conditions on the downstream
side (at Elbow 3) were 3,000 psig at 600F.
The intermediate temperature at Elbow 2
was not documented. In the initial design,
the material for Elbow 1 was specified as
carbon steel, Elbow 3 was specified as a
1 - 1/4 chrome/moly alloy. The reason for
the difference in material of construction
(MOC) is that carbon steel is susceptible to
high temperature hydrogen attack (HTHA)
above ~450F at 3,000 psig, therefore the
chrome/moly alloy was selected for the
higher temperature Elbow 3.
At 3,000 psig and temperatures above
450F hydrogen permeates the carbon steel
and reacts with dissolved carbon to form
methane gas. The degradation of the steels
tensile strength and ductility due to decarburization, coupled
with the formation of methane gas creating localized stresses,
weakens the steel until it ultimately fatigues and ruptures.
In January 2005, scheduled maintenance was performed on the
heat exchanger assembly. The piping connected to the heat ex-
changers was dismantled and stored for the next 39 days. After
maintenance was completed, the piping was retrieved from stor-
age and reinstalled.
The elbows of different material were not marked as such and
the maintenance contractor was not warned of the different
MOC for the elbows. Elbows 1 and 3 were unknowingly in-
stalled in the wrong locations. On July 8, 2005, approximately
five months after re-installing the piping around the heat ex-
changers, the elbow in the #3 position catastrophically failed as
shown in Figure 8.
As you can see in Figure 9 the carbon steel, after becoming
progressively weakened by HTHA, fractured on the inside of
the pipe and catastrophically failed. The incident injured one
person in operations responding to the emergency and cost the
company $30MM.
The one thing you can take
away from this incident is: Do
not dimensionally replicate
piping spools or assemblies of
different materials. The other
underlying, but significant
component you can also take
away is this: In the initial de-
sign of a plant facility the en-
gineer of record will routinely
hold formal design reviews
that will include all key personnel with vested interest in the proj-
ect. In doing so, include, among the attendees, key operations
and management plant personnel from one of the owners op-
erating facilities, if available. These individuals typically bring a
lot of insight and knowledge to a review. Whereas the designers
may not have the wherewithal to think along the lines of issues
that might pertain to a facility turnaround, the plant personnel
will. These are issues that they normally think long and hard
about. Make use of this resource.
Elbow 3
(failure location)
Elbow 1
carbon steel
Elbow 2
High-temperature
hydrogen to furnance
Low-temperature
3,000 psig
hydrogen feed
Preheat gas
Preheat gas
to separator
Heat
exchanger A
1
1
/
4
chrome
alloy piping
1
1
/
4
Chrome alloy pipe
Heat
exchanger B
Bolted flange
(typical)
Carbon steel pipe
Figure 8. Severed 8-in.
NPS hydrogen piping
Figure 7. Heat exchanger fow diagram
Figure 9. Fragments of
the failed 8-in. NPS carbon-
steel spool
Feature Report
pipeline that do not contain a relief
device from being blocked and isolated
during a fire. If the piping system for
flammable fluid service is designed
properly, the contents will be able to
drain or expand into a vessel where
over-pressurization can be relieved
and safely vented.
Point 7. It will be necessary to evacu-
ate as much of the hazardous fluid as
possible from tanks and vessels in the
fire area to a safe location. The pump-
out should continue until there is in-
adequate pump suction head, or until
the fusible link on XV-2 is activated.
At that time the pump interlocks
would shut down the pump.
With regard to tank farms, the fol-
lowing is a suggested minimum con-
sideration for a safe design: Drain
valves should be of a fire-rated type.
Tank outlet valves should be of a fire-
safe type with a fusible link. Tank
nozzles used for gages or instrument
connections should have, at a mini-
mum, valves containing stem pack-
ing and seal gasket material specified
as an acceptable form of graphite, as
mentioned above, or some other fire-
safe material. Gaskets used at nozzle
flange joints should be a fire-safe gas-
ket similar to the spiral wound gas-
kets mentioned earlier or the gasket
shown in Figure 3.
Inline valves in piping downstream
of the tank outlet valve, such as pump
transfer lines and recirculation lines,
do not necessarily need to be fire-
rated, but should have stem packing
and seal gasket material that is fire-
safe as mentioned earlier.
Situations will arise that do not fall
neatly into what has been described
above. If there is any doubt with regard
to valving then default to a fire-rated
valve. Each piping system identified
as needing to be fire-safe should be
designated as such. Where individual
fire-safe valves are to be strategically
located in a system, they should be
designated on their respective P&IDs
either by notation or through the as-
signed pipe material specification.
The pipe-material specification should
be indicated on each pipeline of the
P&ID. The specification itself should
therefore be descriptive enough for
the designer to know which valve to
apply at each location.
Lessons learned from incidents
While this particular discussion is spe-
cific to piping leaks and joint integrity
it bares touching on a few subjects that
are integrally associated with piping
safety: pipe rack protection, protecting
piping from vehicle traffic, and design-
ing for disaster (HAZOP).
In Incident Number 1 (box, p. 37),
the onset of a fire that might otherwise
have been quickly controlled becomes
a catastrophic event because piping
mounted on the unprotected structural
steel of a pipe rack, outside the extent
of the initial occurrence, becomes col-
lateral damage adding more fuel to the
fire causing it to sustain itself, increase
in intensity and continue to spread.
In Incident Number 2 (box, p. 39), an
unprotected and protruding pipeline
component (Y-strainer) is damaged,
causing a major leak that operating
personnel were unable to stop. The en-
suing fire lasted for five days.
In Incident Number 3 (box, p. 41),
two dimensionally identical spool
pieces were designed for a system in
which the two were fabricated from
different materials because their ser-
vice conditions were very different. It
can only be assumed that this was an
erroneous attempt at trying to achieve
duplication of pipe spools in an effort
to assist the fabricator in their pro-
ductivity of pipe fabrication. Instead it
ultimately caused injury to one person
and cost the plant owner $30MM.
Author
president of W. M. Huitt Co.
MO 63131-0154; Phone: 314-966-8919; Email:
wmhuitt@aol.com; URL: www.wmhuitt.com),
a piping consulting firm founded in 1987. His
experience covers both the engineering and
to include petroleum refining, chemical, pet-
rochemical, pharmaceutical, pulp and paper,
nuclear power, biofuel, and coal gasification.
He has written numerous specifications, guide-
lines, papers, and magazine articles on the
topic of pipe design and engineering. Huitt is
a member of ISPE (International Society of
Pharmaceutical Engineers), CSI (Construction
Society of Mechanical Engineers). He is a mem-
ber of three ASME-BPE subcommittees, several
task groups, an API task group, and sits on two
corporate specification review boards.
Centrifuge & Drying
Technologies
Inverting Filter Centrifuge
Cutting edge centrifuge technology for
ltration, washing and drying of solid/liquid
suspensions
t Widest range of applications - hardest to
easiest ltering products can be handled
t No residual heel for exact repeatable
batches and no loss of product
t PAC technology allows drying of the
product inside of the centrifuge
t Thin cake ltration operation allows for
improved quality and production rates
t Full containment eliminates operator
exposure
t Effective automated CIP
Kilo-Lab Conical
Vacuum Dryer-Mixer
Advanced technology
for real Kilo size
drying research
and development
t Utilizes interchangeable agitator systems
either orbiting arm screw or central shaft
t Flexible small scale volume of 150ml to
1500ml
t Plastic view through vessel available
t Designed for real laboratory requirements
of size, with full instrument & data
recording
t Direct scale up to production or pilot size
units
Horizontal & Vertical
Centrifuges
t Size ranges from 200mm to 1800mm
t Wide range of standard & custom designs
t Laboratory size equipment
Lab Testing Available
Rental & Lease Machines Available
www.heinkelusa.com
Tel: 856-467-3399
Revise #1 - 2/4/10
6:00 PM
I
n todays fast track schedules for
constructing new capital facilities,
the process of designing, delivering
and erecting piping often falls in the
projects critical path. This is particu-
larly true for facilities constructed in
emerging economies, where the facility
generally resides in a remote location,
posing significant logistical challenges.
Squarely positioned in the center of the
piping design, deliver and erect (DDE)
process sits the subprocess of fabricat-
ing piping components into erectable
sections of piping, or pipespools. The en-
gineering, procurement and construc-
tion (EPC) contractors management
approach to this fabrication is key be-
cause it impacts the project teams abil-
ity to manage the overall schedule. In
fact, if handled properly, management
of pipespool fabricators can get the pip-
ing DDE process off the projects critical
path altogether.
Before we address how the EPC
contractors active spool management
of the pipespool fabricator may posi-
tively affect schedule and, ultimately,
the construction cost of the facility,
we need to understand the challeng-
ing nature of the piping DDE process
in todays fast-track-project environ-
ment; and we need to briefly address
the level and nature of pipespool-fab-
ricator services on a given project.
Evolving piping design process
In general, as a project unfolds, the
overall facility piping design evolves
as high-level process requirements
translate into a physical design of
equipment linked by piping systems.
These piping systems are complex. A
grassroots petroleum refinery, for in-
stance, can require as many as 10,000
piping inventory codes identifying
unique piping components, given met-
allurgical, mechanical, and configura-
tion related factors. Ideally, the acqui-
sition of piping materials would occur
as the piping design becomes firm
enough to confidently ascertain re-
quirements. Practically, however, fast
track schedules dictate that the mate-
rial acquisition process be executed in
parallel with the evolving piping de-
sign. This places the EPC contractor in
the difficult position of attempting to
balance the timing of piping materials
acquisition between two scenarios: 1)
waiting until the design is firm, risk-
ing schedule delays due to late arriv-
ing materials, or 2) purchasing early
on poorly defined requirements, and
risking purchase of the wrong materi-
als. This latter scenario purchas-
ing the wrong materials is a double
edged sword. Not only does it require
subsequent purchasing activity to re-
place the wrong materials, which often
results in late deliveries, but it also in-
curs surplus of materials left over at
the end of the project, in this case, the
incorrectly purchased items.
Nevertheless, given that schedule
delays and negative project econom-
ics are virtual certainties if the project
follows the first scenario (waiting until
materials requirements are firm),
most EPC contractors choose to man-
age the parallel process of acquiring
piping materials as the design evolves
(commonly referred to as the piping
prebuy process) to guide the project to
a successful on-time completion. As we
will see below, active management of a
pipespool fabricator presents opportu-
nities to recapture schedule time often
lost in the piping prebuy effort, fur-
thering successful project execution.
The piping prebuy process and the
significant negative impact on the
projects bottom line that surplus often
incurs, are both subjects in and of
themselves. They are addressed here
only briefly to establish the schedule
pressure they place into the overall
piping DDE process and to emphasize
the need for the EPC contractor to ex-
ercise every means possible to reduce
the cycle time of the overall piping-
DDE process.
Pipespool fabricators
Pipespool fabricators offer varying lev-
els of services, most often influenced
by the project setting and complex-
ity, but for all practical purposes they
fall into two broad categories: 1) those
that supply the piping components
and fabricate the pipespools, and 2)
those that fabricate pipespools from
spool components supplied to them by
the EPC contractor.
Full-service pipespool fabricators
(those that both supply the materials
and fabricate the pipespools) are gen-
erally found in industrialized settings.
These fabricators maintain on-hand
inventory at least for piping com-
ponents of common metallurgy, wall
schedules, and pressure ratings and
use their inventory to jumpstart fab-
rication. Full-service fabricators also
are attractive to an EPC contractor
because excess material can be carried
over to future projects, at least for com-
monly used piping components. For an
EPC contractor, who approaches each
project as a unique cost center, and
often ends up shedding surplus at a
fraction of value, this approach offers
a means to minimize surplus. Full-
service pipespool fabricators become
less attractive when the project entails
a significant amount of piping compo-
Feature Report
40 CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM JANUARY 2009
Stephen Wyss
Bechtel Oil, Gas, & Chemical
Contractors need to integrate and engage to improve
deliveries and shorten project schedules
Active Management of
Pipespool Fabricators
nents not stocked by the fabricator, and
where the project is not geographically
close to the fabricator, particularly
where there are logistical challenges.
Pipespool fabricators that fabri-
cate from materials supplied by the
EPC contractor (a process referred to
as free-issue) are commonly found in
emerging economies. Most have lim-
ited procurement capacity, or tend to
fabricate for projects where it is not
economical to establish and main-
tain on-hand inventory, in particular
for projects where there are unique
requirements, or where a significant
portion of the piping components are
not easily usable on another project.
Many operate in settings with limited
infrastructure, sometimes setting up a
project-specific facility adjacent to the
project site. Many times these fabrica-
tors, due to their location or project
set-up, are able to satisfy the all-too-
common, emerging-economy project
requirement for local content.
As such, for the projects that seem
to have most challenges relative to the
piping DDE process such as those
in emerging economies and those with
remote locations and logistical chal-
lenges the prevailing approach is to
utilize a fabricator whose scope is lim-
ited to fabrication of free-issue mate-
rials supplied by the EPC contractor.
Such projects, while offering the great-
est challenge, also offer the greatest
opportunity for an EPC contractor to
actively manage the fabricator to de-
liver pipespools to favorably support
the project schedule. The factors dis-
cussed below, while primarily directed
toward positive, active management
of a limited-scope pipespool fabricator,
none the less apply to a lesser extent
to a full-service pipespool fabricator.

KEy managEmEnt issuEs
With this background of the piping
DDE process and a perspective of
pipespool fabricators, well now take a
look at issues that present opportuni-
ties for an EPC contractor to actively
manage the pipespool fabricator to
facilitate delivery of spools, thereby
optimizing piping erection, and over-
all construction of the facility. After
reviewing the key issues, well look at
the impact of these issues and the po-
tential for positively affecting the proj-
ect through proactive management.
Integration
First and foremost is the issue of in-
tegration. Both EPC contractors and
pipespool fabricators operate these
days in a highly automated mode. Virtu-
ally all EPC contractors design using a
3D model that is integrated with other
design-related automation systems,
particularly full spectrum (specify/
design/purchase/receive/control/issue)
materials management (MM) systems.
In parallel, most pipespool fabricators
engineer their spools using software
that produces their fabrication draw-
CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM JANUARY 2009 41
Spool 1 BOM
Pipe - 1 LM
EIbow - 1
FIange - 1
ROS date - May
Spool 2 BOM
Pipe - 1 LM
FIange - 1
Tee - 1
ROS date - Dec.
Releases
SpooI 1: Needed in May reIeased in Sept.
SpooI 2: Needed in Dec. reIeased in Jan.
Release schedule
Jan. SpooI 2
February - August 0 spooIs
Sept. SpooI 1
Receipts
SpooI 1: Needed in May received in Dec.
SpooI 2: Needed in Dec. received in ApriI
Impact on construction
SpooI 2 received nine months earIy
SpooI 1 received seven months Iate

Receipts
Receipts
Beginning
MateriaI Status
Receipts
In Process
MateriaI Status
In Process
MateriaI Status
In Process
MateriaI Status
Month ending
MateriaI Status
Month ending
MateriaI Status
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
M
a
r
c
h

A
u
g
.

Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Spool 1 allocation:
Pipe & Flange
allocated
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 1
Action:
clear
allocation
Action:
hold
allocation
Spool 2 allocation:
Pipe, Flange,
& Tee allocated
Result: not
constructable
Spool 1 allocation:
Pipe & Flange
allocated
Action:
clear
allocation
Result: not
constructable
Result:
constructable
Inventory
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 0
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Pipe 1 LM
Flange 2
Tee 1
Beginning
MateriaI Status
Inventory
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 1
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Inventory
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 1
Tee 0
Inventory
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 1
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Elbow 1
none
ReIeases to
fabrication
ReIeases to
fabrication
ReIeases to
fabrication
Spool 2
none
Receipts
In Process
MateriaI Status
Month ending
MateriaI Status
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 1
Tee 0
Spool 1 allocation:
Pipe, Elbow, & Flange
allocated
Action:
hold
allocation
Result:
constructable
Beginning
MateriaI Status
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 1
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 1
Tee 0
Inventory
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Pipe 1 LM
Spool 1
Scenario 1 - Cascade AIIocation - 3 month fab /deIiver cycIe
Figure 1. In January, this scenario returns Spool 1, which is required onsite in May, back to the pool of allocatable materials,
resulting in Spool 2 being delivered nine months early, while Spool 1 (of higher-priority) is delivered seven months late
LM: Lineal meters
BOM: Bill of materials
ROS: Required onsite
ings. Most fabricators will also have an
MM system tailored to their needs and
linked to the software that designs and
details the spools. Fabricators that are
not full service, but rely on free-issue
materials, will generally have a lim-
ited spectrum (receive/control/issue)
MM system.
Quite often, both the EPC contrac-
tor and the fabricator will be using
software suites that are compatible,
enabling the fabricator to upload data
from the EPC contractors 3D model to
initiate the spool design and detailing
processes. What is not as common is
for the EPC contractor and the fabrica-
tor to link their MM systems such that
each can see what the other sees, as
it relates to spool component delivery.
For the EPC contractor to effectively
and actively manage the process, the
first step is to be able to see what the
fabricator sees relative to on-hand ma-
terials, issued materials, wastage, and
constructability at the same increment
as the fabricator. Conversely, as we will
see below, the key to implementing a
just-in-time fabrication program re-
sides in the ability of the fabricator to
see the EPC contractors delivery data.
Speaking similar languages
EPC contractors generally erect pip-
ing using piping isometric (Iso) draw-
ings extracted from the 3D model.
An Iso will generally contain several
pipespools and the related installing
materials (valves, bolts, gaskets, and
so on). The Iso will also possess a bill
of materials (BOM), which generally
identifies the materials required (com-
monly referred to as takeoff) and splits
the BOM between field materials and
shop materials, with the shop materi-
als comprising the free-issue materials
for the pipespools. The Iso has also his-
torically been the increment by which
the EPC contractor managed materi-
als. For instance, the Iso BOM for shop
materials generally shows the total
requirements for all pipespools on that
Iso without distinguishing what is
needed for each individual pipespool.
As such, Iso BOMs are the increment
by which EPC contractors MM sys-
tems generally operate.
On the other hand, the fabricator
has no interest in the Iso other than as
a reference and always manages ma-
terials at the increment of the spool.
Fabricators spool cut sheets (detailed
spool drawings) possess a BOM just for
the materials required for that spool,
and the fabricators MM systems will
manage materials required for the
spool at this level or increment.
So historically, there has been a dis-
connect between the EPC contractor
MM system and the fabricator MM
system, an apples and oranges com-
parison. In todays computing environ-
ment, where the EPC contractors MM
system is often not designed to extract
BOM data at the spools level, the fabri-
cator can easily pass spool BOM-level
data to the EPC contractor, and a suffi-
ciently robust EPC contractor MM sys-
tem can then be configured to manage
the free-issue materials at the same
increment, for instance, the spool.
Priorities
For the EPC contractor to manage the
fabricator such that spools are fabri-
cated and delivered in the sequence at
which the EPC contractor intends to
erect them, the EPC contractor needs
to communicate priorities, and must
do so at a granularity that facilitates
the allocation process, which is dis-
cussed below. Any good MM system
will possess an allocation system, and
generally, the finer the level of prior-
ity granularity, the better the system
is able to allocate materials to support
desired fabrication and erection se-
quencing. However, there needs to be
a balance here, as specifying too many
priorities can have its own downside.
Conflicting goals and processes
The goals of an EPC contractor on a
given project and that of the pipespool
fabricator are rarely in concert. The
pipespool fabricator desires to oper-
ate his facility efficiently and at a con-
stant level. This is best accomplished
by scheduling groups of spools in a
common metallurgy to be released for
fabrication together, by scheduling to-
gether a group of spools in the same
pipe diameter to simplify handling and
optimize use of pipe drops, and by re-
leasing spools at a constant production
rate by 1) building up and maintaining
a backlog of constructable spools and
2) by releasing spools at a rate that
does not deplete the backlog.
An EPC contractor, by contrast,
generally wants spools delivered in se-
quence according to planned erection
starts of piping in areas at the con-
struction site, per the project sched-
ule. In general, each area will contain
a mix of metallurgies and a wide array
of pipe diameters. The EPC contractor
wants delivery of spools as soon as
they are constructable in accordance
with the priorities released into fab-
rication. The EPC contractor has no
concern if this might cause a spike in
production, and thus resources, at the
fabricator, or if it depletes the fabri-
cators backlog. Given that the goals
of the two parties are not aligned, it
should not be surprising that the al-
location process each prefers to utilize
also conflicts.
Allocation processes are routines that
form the core of the control aspect of
an MM system. An allocation process
takes the tens of thousands of pipe fit-
tings and hundreds of thousands of feet
of pipe all spread over thousands of
inventory codes as they are required
on thousands of spools and, accord-
ing to the project priorities and control
logic, determines which spools should
be fabricated in what order.
Typical fabricator allocation
Most fabricators utilize what is com-
monly referred to as a cascade alloca-
tion. This process is designed to maxi-
mize current fabrication; for instance,
identifying as many spools as possible
that are constructable with the cur-
rent on-hand inventory. Most will have
the ability to interject EPC contractor
priorities, so that spools are processed
sequentially according to the priorities
provided by the EPC contractor. But a
cascade system is very different from a
strict construction-priority allocation,
which is commonly utilized by EPC
contractors as noted below. Here is
how the cascade allocation works.
Sequentially by priority, the MM sys-
tem will look at the first spool BOM,
and on an inventory code basis, ascer-
tain if there is unallocated on-hand in-
ventory for that inventory code. If there
is, available stock will be allocated to
this BOM and deducted from the avail-
able pool for following spools. The pro-
cess then moves to the next inventory
code for that spool and executes the
CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM JANUARY 2009 43
same evaluation. Once all inventory
codes for that given spool have been
evaluated, the system will look to see if
all inventory codes for that spool have
been satisfied, in other words if the
spool is constructable. If so, the allo-
cations are retained. If not, the spool
will be considered non-constructable
if as little as a single inventory code
has not been allocated to on-hand in-
ventory. As a result, the allocations for
each inventory code on that spool will
be returned to the pool of allocatable
material for the remaining spools.
The process will then move to the
next spool BOM and perform the same
analysis. This will continue until all
spool BOMs have been assessed.
Typical EPC allocation
A strict, construction-priority-allo-
cation process allocates on-hand in-
ventory, as the name says, strictly by
priority. As with the fabricator cas-
cade system, the strict construction-
priority allocation looks at the spool
BOMs on an inventory code basis
doing so sequentially by priority
and allocates on-hand inventory if
available, subtracting from the avail-
able pool accordingly. Contrary to the
cascade process, however, the strict
construction-priority process does
not look to see if the spool is construc-
table before moving on to the next
spool, nor does it return allocations
to the allocatable pool if the spool is
not constructable. Allocations once
made, are retained, at least until the
next run of the process.
This process is not intended to as-
certain the maximum amount of con-
structable spools in the current time-
frame, but instead is designed to see
that priority spools are truly given
priority. While this process might ap-
pear to be counter-productive when
compared to the cascade process, as
we will see below, the opposite is ac-
tually true.
Just-in-time fabrication
Just-in-time fabrication implies just
what it says, fabrication just as the
spool components arrive. This is simi-
lar to the just-in-time delivery concept
used in manufacturing processes, but
here the just-in-time concept applies to
the end product, not the component.
As noted above, fabricators generally
try to maintain a good backlog of con-
structable spools, usually four to eight
weeks worth, so that they dont find
their workers standing by idly with no
spools to fabricate. For projects where
fabrication proceeds from free-issue
materials, the fabricators MM system
rarely has any knowledge of future de-
liveries and is limited to planning work
according to on-hand inventory. This is
another issue where integration with
the EPC contractor, either by linking
MM systems and downloading deliv-
ery data into a capable fabricator MM
system, or by providing the fabricator
access to the EPC contractors MM sys-
Receipts
Receipts
Beginning
Material Status
Receipts
In Process
Material Status
In Process
Material Status
In Process
Material Status
Month ending
Material Status
Month ending
Material Status
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
M
a
r
c
h

A
u
g
.

Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 1
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Spool 1 allocation:
Pipe & Flange
allocated
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Action:
hold
allocation
Action:
hold
allocation
Spool 2 alloca-
tion: Flg & Tee
allocated
Result: not
constructable
Spool 1 allocation:
Pipe, Elbow, & Flange
allocated
Action:
hold
allocation
Result:
constructable
Result: not
constructable
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
In Process
Material Status
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 2
Tee 1
Action:
hold
allocation
Spool 2 allocation:
Flange & Tee
allocated
Result: not
constructable
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 2
Tee 1
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 2
Tee 1
Pipe 1 LM
Flange 2
Tee 1
Releases to
fabrication
Releases to
fabrication
Releases to
fabrication
Beginning
Material Status
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 2
Tee 1
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 1
Flange 2
Tee 1
Inventory
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 1
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 1
Elbow 1
none
none
Spool 1
Receipts
In Process
Material Status
Month ending
Material Status
Allocations
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 1
Spool 1 allocation:
Pipe, Flange, & Tee
allocated
Action:
hold
allocation
Result:
constructable
Beginning
Material Status
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 1
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Inventory
Pipe 1 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 1
Tee 1
Inventory
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Allocations
Pipe 0 LM
Elbow 0
Flange 0
Tee 0
Pipe 1 LM
Spool 2
Scenario 2 Construction Priority Allocation 3 month fab /deliver cycle
Spool 1 BOM
Pipe - 1 LM
EIbow - 1
FIange - 1
ROS date May
Spool 2 BOM
Pipe - 1 LM
EIbow - 1
FIange - 1
ROS date Dec.
Releases
Spool 1: Needed in May released in Sept.
Spool 2: Needed in Dec. released in Jan.
Release schedule
Jan. Spool 2
February August 0 spools
Sept. Spool 1
Receipts
Spool 1: Needed in May received in Dec.
Spool 2: Needed in Dec. received in April
Impact on Construction
Spool 2 received nine months early
Spool 1 received seven months late
Figure 2. In the construction-priority allocation scenario, the fabrication of Spool 1 is held until materials are available, thereby
keeping its materials from being allocated to a lesser-priority spool. As a result, both spools arrive on time
LM: Lineal meters
BOM: Bill of materials
ROS: Required onsite
tem, or some melding of processes in
between, allows the fabricator to use
future deliveries as backlog. We will
discuss this more in the sections below.
BEnEFits oF activE
sPool managEmEnt
Now that we have highlighted key is-
sues, lets look at how they facilitate ac-
tive spool management and how active
spool management increases the likeli-
hood of spool deliveries to support the
projects planned erection schedule.
Integration
Integration is the thread that runs
through all of the key management
issues. Without integration, the EPC
contractor must rely on the pipespool
fabricator to provide spool status and
on-hand inventory of spool components
at the fabricators facility. Conversely,
the fabricator only knows what he has,
not what is coming.
By allowing each to see what the
other sees, communication is much
more open, and where either one de-
sires information from the other, that
information is often available by look-
ing, instead of asking for it and wait-
ing for a response.
Management at the spool level
Where an EPC contractor leaves his
or her MM system incremented at the
Iso BOM level, efforts to address why
specific spools have not been released
for which the EPC contractors MM
system appears to show constructabil-
ity are often futile. Basically, unless
the EPC contractor is managing at
the same increment as the fabricator,
and is actively reviewing construc-
tability data at the spool level, the
EPC contractor simply must rely on
the fabricator to assess and ascertain
constructability. This can often lead to
significant frustration on the part of
the EPC contractor, and unnecessary
efforts expended by the fabricator to
justify what has been released to fab-
rication. This is particularly true given
the conflicting goals the two parties
tend to work toward, which, without
open communication, can cause unnec-
essary friction between the parties.
On some projects, an EPC contrac-
tor who has not integrated and does
not have the means to manage at the
spool level will attempt to direct the
fabricator to release spools based on
Iso constructability. By this, we mean
the EPC contractor waits until all shop
materials on an Iso are allocated. This,
however, can significantly delay re-
lease of spools that would otherwise
be constructable. An Iso will contain
anywhere from one to five or six spools,
averaging about three spools. When
managing at the Iso level, it only takes
one item something as insignificant
as a minor fitting to make the Iso
nonconstructable. Where a single item
is holding up the Iso, it is unnecessar-
ily holding up spools that are otherwise
constructable. The solution here is, of
course, to manage at the spool level.
Manageable priority granularity
Too few priorities tend to clog the al-
location process, yielding a slug of
pipespools being delivered all at once.
Where EPC contractor construction re-
sources for piping erection are limited
and need to be spread out, this sce-
nario delays erection commencement
and causes unacceptable construction
resource peaks. Conversely, a very
high level of priority often leads to pri-
ority reshuffling, which tends to have a
detrimental impact on planning.
The best scenario is where the EPC
contractor has thoughtfully planned
the work, breaking the project scope
into manageable areas coinciding with
schedule events (such as area access,
equipment erection, system handover,
and so on), and where this sequencing
is translated into a set of priorities at
a granularity level where the sequenc-
ing can be expected to hold.
Supporting project goals
In the case study in the box, we dem-
onstrated the potential for detrimental
impact of the cascade process on deliv-
eries of spools to the construction site to
support planned erection. A small proj-
ect will have 5,000 or so spools; a large
project may have 50,000 to 75,000. If
we multiply the disconnect of deliver-
ies relative to planned erection of the
two spools in our example by 10,000 (to
represent a medium size project with
20,000 spools) the impact becomes clear.
Thousands of spools will arrive early, re-
quiring unnecessary storage. Thousands
will arrive late, causing construction de-
lays. If the fabricators system is limited
to a cascade allocation, the only way to
implement a strict construction-priority
allocation is via the EPC contractors
MM system. And without both integra-
tion and management at the spool level,
this will be very difficult.
Accelerated releases
As noted above, a fabricator that can-
not see what his backlog includes, or
who does not have the information to
predict workload into the short-term
(at least two to three months) can ex-
pect some unpleasant surprises, both
due to pressure from production peaks,
and from idle staff in an unforeseen
production valley. Most fabricators try
to avoid such surprises by scheduling
Case study: CasCade vs. striCt
ConstruCtion Priority
F
igures 1 and 2 take us through a very simple set of examples of the two differing al-
location processes. Here we have two spools with slightly different, but overlapping
requirements. Scenario 1 shows the individual steps in the process for a cascade al-
location; Scenario 2 does the same for the strict construction-priority allocation. The only
substantive difference in the two scenarios occurs in the month of January where the
cascade process returns the pipe for the higher-priority Spool 1 (with a required-onsite
or ROS date in May) back to the pool of allocatable materials, because this spool is not
constructable, and then allocates the pipe to lower priority Spool 2 (required-onsite or
ROS date in December), because Spool 2 is constructable. The strict construction-priority
process as shown holds this allocation for priority Spool 1.
Looking at the net result of these two processes from an aggregate delivery perspec-
tive, independent of priorities, the cascade process appears superior; it gets a spool into
fabrication one month earlier also getting the spool onsite one month earlier.
Looking at the same net result from a priority focused aggregate perspective, however,
the cascade allocation process has a devastating effect on planned erection. Scenario
2 gets one spool into fabrication, and thus onsite, one month later but gets both spools
onsite when needed. Scenario 1 gets one spool onsite nine months early and one spool
onsite seven months late.
This case study also demonstrates another negative effect of a lack of integration.
Where the fabricator MM system is ignorant of future deliveries generally the case
in a free-issue scenario it has no way of knowing that the elbow, which is restrain-
ing Spool 1 in January, is scheduled to arrive in February making priority Spool 1 not
constructable until then. The EPC contractor MM system, which has this data, however,
is not thusly impaired. r
production based on what they can see
from on-hand inventory.
In a situation where the EPC con-
tractor and the fabricator have inte-
grated, and where the shop load can be
predicted from both on-hand inventory
and future deliveries, the fabricator
can schedule production to release all
constructable spools, up to his capacity
level, in the current timeframe. Instead
of establishing a backlog of spools from
on-hand inventory alone, the fabricator
can include spools that show to be con-
structable in the short-term based on
both on-hand inventory and deliveries
scheduled in the short-term.
In a situation where the fabricator
would otherwise build up a four to eight
week backlog of on-hand inventory, the
production schedule could ideally be
brought forward four to eight weeks. The
net result would be to move the entire
production schedule forward (sooner)
four to eight weeks, yielding a net result
to the project of all spools being deliv-
ered four to eight weeks earlier.
By itself, independent of allocation
process issues, just-in-time fabrication
can gain the project one to two months
of schedule, that is, if the piping DDE
process is on the critical path. Or it
might get the piping DDE process off
the critical path, allowing the EPC
contractor to refocus resources else-
where to improve schedule.
In any case, just-in-time fabrication
cannot be achieved outside of an in-
tegrated relationship, and only if the
EPC contractor is proactively engaged
in management of the fabrication pro-
cess, working to see that critical spool
component deliveries are on track to
support just-in-time fabrication.
Conclusion
EPC contractors, and pipespool fab-
ricators who work with them, will
continue to be challenged to meet the
demanding fast track schedules pre-
sented by projects in emerging econo-
mies, particularly those with logistical
challenges. By closing communication
gaps and actively engaging pipespool
fabricators, EPC contractors can be
much better positioned to succeed.
Edited by Rebekkah Marshall
Author
Stephen Wyss is a Mate-
rials Manager at Bechtel
Oil, Gas, and Chemicals,
Inc, (3000 Post Oak Blvd,
Houston, TX 77056-6503;
Phone: 713-235-4625; Email:
sewyss@bechtel.com) and has
33 years experience work-
ing with EPC contractors,
including previous tenures
at Black & Veatch Pritchard,
CF Braun, and Intergraph.
His current duties entail coordinating materi-
als related aspects of engineering, procurement,
suppliers, and construction for large capital pro-
cess plant projects, in general for bulk materi-
als such as piping, electrical, and structural, but
particularly for complex fabricated systems such
as pipespools and structural steel. His project ex-
perience has generally been in emerging economy
environments with logistical challenges including
the Middle East, India, and Africa. A registered
mechanical engineer in Texas and California, he
holds a J.D. degree in law from Loyola Law School
(Los Angeles) and an A.B. degree in architecture
from the University of California at Berkeley.
A
common practice in the chemi-
cal process industries (CPI) is
to implement so-called value-
maximization projects (VMP) to
increase production or reduce produc-
tion costs in order to increase profit
margins. With such projects, one main
objective of the design team is to incur
minimum capital expenditures.
Because most VMPs aim to increase
throughput or production yield, many
such projects involve changes to the
process that result in an increase in
the volume of feed flowing into a gas-
liquid separator (GLS). The system
modifications that are required often
call for:
ThedesignofanewGLStoaccom-
modate the increased flow, or
Themodificationofthevesselinter-
nals and associated piping to handle
the increased feed flow
Increased feed flow into any GLS can
lead to the entrainment of gases into
the liquid lines. Such gas entrainment
can lead to pulsating flows in the line,
which can result in vibration and po-
tentially destabilize the downstream
processes. In many cases where GLS
are provided with gravity-flow pipe-
lines a common approach, as it pro-
vides an inexpensive way to transport
liquids the use of self-venting pipe-
lines coupled with properly sized vortex
breakers can mitigate the problem of
entrainment of gases into liquid lines.
Theoretical basis
A typical GLS arrangement with
gravity flow is shown in Figure 1. The
operating pressure of the first vessel
(V-1) is P
0
(psig) and its oper-
ating temperature is T
0
(F). The
operating pressure and temperature
of the second vessel (V-2) are P
2
and
T
2
, respectively.
The pressure and temperature of
the liquid at the exit nozzle of V-1
are P
1
and T
1
, respectively. In Figure
1, the region from the exit of V-1 to
the inlet of V-2 is highlighted with a
dashed outline. It shows that the as-
sociated piping of the system consists
of pipes and elbows.
The following assumptions are con-
sidered for this system:
Liquid flowing through the line is
incompressible
Thesystemisinsteadystate
Thereisnoflashingofliquid
Pressures P
0
, P
1
and P
2
are con-
stant
Thepipesizeisuniform
System equations
Step 1. The pipeline is sized for liquid
flow using a conventional line-sizing
approach for typical velocity consider-
ations and least annual cost. Table 1
shows typical liquid velocities in steel
pipelines.
Table 1 shows typical velocities in
steel pipelines with liquid flow [3].
It provides a good estimate for the
preliminary selection of the pipeline
size with respect to its nominal bore
(N.B.) dimensions. As Table 1 provides
generalized data, readers can use the
values provided for any type of pipes,
irrespective of metallurgy or material
of construction.
By applying the lowest-annual-cost
approach as stated by Moharir [3],
the cost of the pipe material per unit
length for a run of pipe with diameter
D is calculated using Equation (1):
(1)
Along with the pipe, the cost of accesso-
ries and fittings must also be factored
in, hence their number must also be
computed on a per-unit-length basis.
For instance, if a pipeline of 100 ft has
5 gate valves, 4 long-radius elbows of
90 deg, 2 tees and 7 weld joints, then its
per-unit fitting cost can be taken col-
lectively as a factor F. If the amortiza-
tion rate is A
M
and the annual mainte-
nance cost is a fraction G of the capital
cost, then the annualized capital plus
maintenance cost of the pipeline, C
P
, is
calculated using Equation (2):
Feature Report
42 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com june 2011
D
o
l
l
a
r

p
e
r

y
e
a
r

p
e
r

f
o
o
t

o
f

p
i
p
e
Nominal pipe size, ft
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 6 8
FIGURE 1. Shown here is a typical
gas-liquid separator, with gravity fow
from V-1 to V-2 [1]
Reduce Gas Entrainment
In Liquid Lines
P
0
T
0
P
1
, T
1
h
H
0
H
1
H
2
Ground
V-1
V-2 P
2
, T
2
FIGURE 2. The relationship between
amortized capital cost per foot of pipe
and nominal pipe size is shown here [3]
Follow these tips to properly size
self-venting lines and vortex breakers
Tamagna Ukil and Thomas Mathew
Reliance Industries Ltd.
(2)
Rearranging Equations (1) and (2)
produces Equation (3):
(3)
In most cases, another component,
C
F
, is needed to calculate is the oper-
ating cost. However, in this case, the
operating cost component C
F
is not
considered due to the absence of any
rotary equipment. Differentiating C
P

with respect to D, to obtain optimum
diameter of the pipeline (D) and set-
ting it to zero, Equation (3) can then
be simplified as follows:
(4)
Figure 2 shows the relationship be-
tween the amortized annual cost per
unit length of pipe (ft) and nominal
pipe size (nominal bore).
From the two methods described
above, D is obtained as an initial
line size in terms of nominal pipe size
(nominal bore) of the pipe.
Step 2. The next step is to carry out
the Froude number analysis for the
line using the diameter obtained from
Step 1. As per Simpsons article [2], if
the fluid inside a vessel does not ro-
tate and if the liquid level in the ves-
sel is below a certain height, then gas
will get sucked into the liquid line. A
conservative estimate of this level was
derived by Harleman et al. [1], Harle-
mans equation is:
(5)
Equation (5) can be used to estimate
the height of the liquid inside V-1
below which the gas would be sucked
into the liquid line.
Experiments on 13/16-in. pipeline
and on 1-in. to 4-in. pipelines by Simp-
son and Webb [2], respectively, show
that if the Froude number in the pipe-
line is less than 0.31, then gas will not
be entrained. If the Froude number
of the liquid flowing in the pipeline
is greater than 0.31, then gas starts
getting swept up by the liquid. High,
two-phase pulsating flow is observed
when the Froude number is between
0.31 and 1.
This is the basis of design for self-
venting lines: Any provision for self-
venting lines should ensure that the
Froude number remains between 0
and 0.31. The typical velocity of liq-
uid in self-venting pipelines is in the
range of 1 ft/s.
Step 3. When the flow inside a vessel
is rotational, vortex breakers should
be provided to prevent gas entrain-
ment into liquid lines. If V-1 has a
feed entry point that is tangential
to the vessel, it will induce a swirl-
ing motion in the liquid, like a whirl-
pool. If this swirling motion is strong
enough to reach the liquid exit nozzle
of V-1, then it would lead to entrain-
ment of gas into the liquid pipeline.
Borgheis experiments [4] in pipe-
lines of 2-in. to 4-in. show that vortex
breakers with dimensions double the
nominal bore of the pipe are highly
efficient in reducing the vortex effect
inside the vessel.
Thus in V-1, with a self-venting liq-
uid exit line, the vortex breaker ar-
rangement should be in the form of a
cross (+). When the vertical and hori-
zontal dimension of the plates that are
used to fabricate the vortex breaker
have a dimension of 2D, each can
substantially reduce the entrainment
of gas into the liquid exit. The steps
described above can be summarized in
the flowsheet shown in Figure 3.
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com june 2011 43
Table 1. Typical velociTies in sTeel pipelines
wiTh liquid flow [3]
nominal pipe size, in. 2 or less 3 to 10 10 to 20
liquid and line
velocity,
ft/s
velocity,
ft/s
velocity,
ft/s
Water
Pump suction 1 to 2 2 to 4 3 to 6
Pump discharge (long) 2 to 3 3 to 5 4 to 7
Discharge heads (short) 4 to 9 5 to 12 8 to 14
Boiler feed 5 to 9 5 to 12 8 to 14
Drains 3 to 4 3 to 5
Sloped sewer 3 to 5 4 to 7
Hydrocarbon liquids
(Normal viscosities) 1.5 to 2.2 2 to 4 3 to 6
Pump suction 2.5 to 3.5 3 to 5 4 to 7
Discharge heads (long) 4 to 9 5 to 12 8 to 15
Boiler feed 3 to 4 3 to 5
Drains
Viscous oils
Pump suction
Medium viscosity 1.5 to 3 2.5 to 5
Tar and fuel oils 0.4 to 0.75 0.5 to 1
Discharge (short) 3 to 5 4 to 6
Drains 1 1.5 to 3
NO
YES
Start
Optimize the diameter using
annual cost approach to get D'
Select the D' and
size vortex breakers
Vortex breakers to be
of 2D X 2D dimension
Stop
Obtain initial pipe diameter
using Table 1
Check Fr < 0.31
Select the N.B.
of pipe such that
Fr < 0.31
FIGURE 3. This fowsheet illustrates the types of deci-
sions that must be made to properly size gravity fow lines
and vortex breakers, to reduce gas entrainment
44 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com june 2011
The following conclusions can be
made from the discussion above:
1. The line size full of liquid will al-
ways be smaller than the self-vent-
ing line.
2. The work described in Refs. 2 and 4
are based on small lines (up to 4-in.
nominal bore).
3. If liquid flow varies during
operation, the pipe should be sized
to accommodate the maximum
possible flow.
4. D obtained from Equation 5
should be rounded off to the higher
nominal bore of pipe of standard
available size. n
References
1. Yu, F.C., Hydrocarbon Proc., Nov. 1997.
2. Simpson, L.L., Chem. Eng., June 17, 1960, p. 191.
3. Moharir, A.S., Pipe hydraulics and sizing, IIT
Bombay, May 7, 2008.
4. Borghei, S.M. Partial reduction of vortex in verti-
cal intake pipe, Scientiairanica, Vol 17, Issue 2.
Authors
Tamagna Ukil is the Man-
ager of PTA-Process at Reli-
ance Industries Ltd. (Reliance
Corporate Park, Ghansoli, 7-B
Ground Floor, Navi Mumbai
Maharashtra, India; Phone:
+912-244-783-452; Email:
tamaga.ukil@ril.com). He
holds a B.S.Ch.E. from Utkal
University. He is a Certi-
fied Piping Engineer from
IIT Bombay, and has been
working with Reliance Technology Group, PTA
Division, to provide advanced technical services
in the field of design, simulation and process
optimization for the manufacture of purified
terephthalic acid (PTA).
Thomas Mathew is presi-
dent of Reliance Industries
Ltd. He graduated as a Chem-
ical Engineer from Kerala
University (Trichur Engineer-
ing College), and spent the
first 16 years of his career
involved in the production of
ammonia from numerous raw
materials, including natural
gas, naphtha, fuel oil and coal.
Mathew participated in the
startup of two coal gasification plants and served
as plant manager for five years in the coal gas-
ification plant at Ramagundam, India. He joined
Reliance in 1985 and took charge of the com-
missioning and startup of several petrochemical
plants, before heading the manufacturing opera-
tions of the Reliances Patalganga Complex. He
leads the Centre of Excellence in PTA and Gasifi-
cation within Reliance.
WHY MONITOR POWER INSTEAD OF JUST AMPS?
NO LOAD NO LOAD
Power is Linear-Equal Sensitivity
at Both Low and High Loads
No Sensitivity
For Low Loads
FULL LOAD FULL LOAD
P
O
W
E
R
A
M
P
S
WWW.LOADCONTROLS.COM
CALL NOW FOR YOUR FREE 30-DAY TRIAL 888-600-3247
PROTECT PUMPS
DRY RUNNING CAVITATION BEARING FAILURE OVERLOAD
MONITOR PUMP POWER
Best Sensitivity
Digital Display
TWO ADJUSTABLE SET POINTS
Relay Outputs
Adjustable Delay Timers
4-20 MILLIAMP ANALOG OUTPUT
COMPACT EASY MOUNTING
Only 3.25" x 6.25" x 2"
Starter Door Panel
Raceway Wall
UNIQUE RANGE FINDER SENSOR
Works on Wide-range of Motors
Simplies Installation
PUMP POWER
PUMPING
VALVE CLOSING
VALVE OPENING
NO FLUID
NomeNclature
A
M
Amortized cost per unit length of
pipe, $/ft
C
D
Cost per unit length of pipe, $/ft
C
P
Total capital cost per unit length of
pipe, $/ft
F Pipe fitting cost per unit length of
pipe, $/ft
Fr Froude number
G Maintenance cost per unit length of
pipe, $/ft
g Acceleration due to gravity, ft/s
2
h Height inside V-1, ft
D Initial pipe dia., in.
D Optimum pipe dia., in.
D Dia. of self-venting line, in.
P
0
, P
1
, P
2
Pressure shown in Fig. 1, psig
T
0
, T
1
, T
2
Temperature shown in Fig. 1, F
V Velocity of the liquid through the
pipeline, ft/s
X Cost per unit length of 2-in. nomi-
nal bore pipe of the same material
and schedule, $/ft
M
any individuals and organi-
zations have made impor-
tant contributions to the cre-
ation of inherently safer (IS)
products, processes and process plants
[13]. A brief survey of successful case
histories shows that most reported
applications relied on only a few of
the core IS principles. This paper em-
phasizes the opportunities presented
by three particular and often-over-
looked possibilities for inherently
safer processes.
The methods proposed here ensure
integration of IS methods beginning
with process conception and continu-
ing through process plant engineering
design. Particular emphasis is given
to matching the IS principles with the
state of the project. For example, sub-
stitution is best applied during prod-
uct and process research, while limita-
tion of effects is most effective during
plot plan layout and equipment ar-
rangement.
The chemical process industries
(CPI) face the challenge of working
with processes and products that
present many hazards, such as
the following:
The manufacture of fuels uses and
produces products that burn with
significant energy release
Certain basic chemicals, such as
mineral acids and halogens are toxic
and/or corrosive
Many manufacturing processes ei-
ther release or require significant
energy transfer to achieve chemical
transformation
Somemanufacturingprocessespro-
duce benign products but require
hazardous chemical intermediates
in their manufacture
For these reasons, rigorous process
and product safety practices must be
used throughout the lifecycle of pro-
cess plants and must be applied to
their associated raw materials and
products. In recent years, this has
led to major efforts in green chemis-
try and engineering to develop prod-
ucts, manufacturing processes, and
plants that are safer for both people
and the environment.
Before green chemistry and engi-
neering achieved prominence, there
were pioneering insights in the de-
sign of safer process plants. Early ap-
proaches to safer processes often em-
ployed additional instrumentation and
procedures. These measures were often
helpful and necessary, but instrumen-
tation and operators can fail, especially
when faced with complexity.
Trevor Kletz [1] recognized that
What you dont have cant leak, when
he first proposed the concept of the
inherently safer chemical processes
in 1977. His approach placed an em-
phasis on the inherent nature of the
process. Since then, important related
concepts such as product design for
safety and safer products, process and
plant lifecycles have also advanced.
Creation of IS processes has been the
objectives of a number of creative indi-
viduals and organizations since Kletzs
path finding proposal, with many no-
table successes.
Complete coverage of the entire prod-
uct/process/plant lifecycle is needed to
assure optimum health, safety and en-
vironmental performance of a chemi-
cal enterprise.
This article focuses on how to en-
sure maximum incorporation of IS
processes into the creation of a pro-
cess plant by beginning at the product
and process research stages and con-
cluding with the detailed design. No
effort is made to address the applica-
tion of inherently safer principles be-
yond plant design, although these are
also important.
Layers of protection
The classical onion diagram (Figure
1) illustrates the safety layers that
technical professionals throughout
Feature Report
Victor H. Edwards, P.E., Aker Solutions
Community
emergency
response
Plant emergency
response
Physical
protection (dikes)
Physical
protection
(relief devices)
Automatic action
safety-instrumented
systems (SIS)
or ESD
Critical alarms,
operator super-
vision and manual
intervention
Basic controls,
process alarms and
operator
supervision
Process design
1. Process design
3. Critical alarms, operator supervision
and manual intervention
4. Automatic action safety-instrumented
systems (SIS) or ESD
5. Physical protection (relief devices)
6. Physical protection (dikes)
7. Plant emergency response
8. Community emergency response
2. Basic controls, process alarms and
operator supervision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Designing
Safer

Process Plants
Several often-overlooked strategies
to increase inherent safety are discussed here
FIGURE 1. Shown here are some
typical layers of protection that can be
employed in a modern process plant [4].
At the core is an inherently safe process
design. Moving outward from the core,
the proposed options move through the
spectrum from inherent to passive to
active to procedural or administrative
controls, which are considered to be
progressively less reliable
the CPI use to prevent process plant
incidents. This diagram helps to ex-
plain the following four basic process
risk-management strategies: Inher-
ent, passive, active, and procedural or
administrative
Inherent safety is at the core of the
onion the process design. A process
that cannot have a major fire, explo-
sion or toxic release is inherently safer
than one that could if one or more lay-
ers of protection were to fail.
Passive safety layers represent the
addition of such safety features as a
dike or a blast wall. Because passive
layers of protection require no active
intervention by a human or by a ma-
chine, they are deemed more reliable
than active layers of protection or
procedural layers of protection. None-
theless, the ability to make an explo-
sion impossible when possible is
clearly better than trying to mitigate
the effects of a potential explosion by
adding a blast wall.
Active layers of protection repre-
sent such features as the basic process
control system, a safety-instrumented
system, and mechanical interlocks.
Procedural or administrative
safety layers are generally considered
to be the least reliable and include op-
erating procedures and operator inter-
vention. Depending on the site-specific
hazard, procedural or administrative
controls may be entirely appropriate.
In general, the preferred ranking
of methods to control process risks is
shown below:
Inherent > passive > active > proce-
dural or administrative
Basic concepts
Inherently safer process concepts are
summarized below [1]:
Substitution
Minimizationorintensification
Moderationorattenuation
Simplification
Limitationof(hazardous)effects
Avoidingknock-oneffects
Makingincorrectassemblyimpossible
Makestatusclear
Toleranceoferror
Easeofcontrol
Administrative controls or proce-
dures
In 2007, the Center for Chemical
Process Safety (CCPS) of the Ameri-
can Institute of Chemical Engineers
(AIChE) concluded that these eleven
basic concepts could be reduced to the
following four principles [2]:
Minimize
Substitute
Moderate
Moderate and simplify
This more concise set of principles
makes IS practices simpler to under-
stand and easier to apply. The excel-
lent new CCPS book (2009) goes on to
distinguish between first-order and
second-order IS:
First-order IS efforts change the
chemistry of a process
Second-order IS efforts change the
process variables
As can be seen by a survey of the pro-
cess safety literature, most published
work has applied one or more of the
first four concepts of the eleven cited
by Kletz and Amyotte [1] For this
reason, this article emphasizes three
other promising concepts.
Often-overlooked IS concepts
Three underutilized IS concepts are
presented here and illustrated with
examples:
1. Hybridization or transforma-
tion. One relatively new IS concept is
based on the recent innovative work
by Chen [5] who reports an inherently
safer process for the partial oxidation
of cyclohexane. Partial oxidation pro-
cesses often involve hazardous condi-
tions, as illustrated by the Flixborough,
England, tragedy in 1974 which
killed 28 people, destroyed a plant, led
to new process safety regulations, and
inspired Trevor Kletz to propose his
inherently safer design concept. The
Flixborough plant carried out liquid-
phase oxidation of large inventories of
hot cyclohexane in large pressurized
vessels. When containment was lost, a
large flammable vapor cloud formed,
ignited, and exploded with devastating
effect(Figure2,fromMannan[6]).
The traditional cyclohexane-oxida-
tion process to produce a mixture of cy-
clohexanone and cyclohexanol (K/A oil
or ketone/alcohol oil) was operated at
low conversion rates (typically 35%)
to avoid formation of unwanted byprod-
ucts. The K/A oil was subsequently con-
verted into adipic acid and caprolactam
for the production of nylon.
Oxidation of cyclohexane with air
instead of oxygen is common practice
to reduce risks of transition from a
partial oxidation reaction to an un-
controlled deflagration in bubbles
or in the vapor space in the reactor.
Low conversions and reaction
rates led to large inventories of liquid
cyclohexane.
During systematic research on the
flammability and deflagration haz-
ards of cyclohexane, air and oxygen
mixtures, Chen [5] discovered that the
addition of a small amount of water
which is inert and does not par-
ticipate in the reaction helped to
inert the otherwise flammable vapors.
Cyclohexane and water are known to
form minimum-boiling azeotropes.
The increase in the vapor pressure of
the cyclohexane/water liquid results
from the increased vapor pressure of
the water. The water vapor inerts the
vapor mixture by lowering the upper
flammable limit of the vapor [5].
Chens work suggests that it will be
FIGURE 2. The Flixborough tragedy ushered in a new era in process safety [6]
safe and practical to use pure oxygen
for cyclohexane oxidation. Benefits in-
clude both IS operation and improved
productivity. They also suggest that
this approach could be extended to
safer processes for partial oxidation of
other liquid hydrocarbons using pure
oxygen.
Chens approach is a first-order IS
process innovation because it changes
the chemistry of the gas phase in a
gas-liquid reaction and prevents the
unwanted side reaction of combustion
from occurring in the gas phase.
Although reference [5] did not claim
to have demonstrated a new IS con-
cept, Chens work is different from the
classical definition of the Substitute
principle because the same reactants,
chemical reactions, and products are
involved. If the name Substitute were
broadened to names such as Change
in Chemistry or Hybridize, then it
could be lumped in with the many suc-
cessful applications that are possible
when using the Substitute concept.
Chens innovation permits rapid cy-
clohexane oxidation at lower tempera-
tures and pressures, and could thus
be said to be an example of the inher-
ently safer principle Moderate. How-
ever, Chens approach enables more
moderate conditions by narrowing the
flammability limits through the addi-
tion of a new component, water. It is
thus an example of supplementation
or hybridization.
Although not proposed by Chen [5]
himself, his work suggests that there
may be many other opportunities
for transformation or hybridization
of other potentially hazardous reac-
tions to make them inherently safer.
Although water would be high on any-
ones list as a potentially transform-
ing additive, it probably will not help
many potentially hazardous reactions.
However, there are many other chemi-
cals that may be inert to the reaction
and thus also be capable of inerting the
vapor phase involved in an otherwise
reactive liquid-vapor reaction. For in-
stance, there are many examples of
azeotropic mixtures in the literature
and there are many compounds that
could prove inert to oxidation reac-
tions (such as, certain halocarbons).
Applications are not limited to
partial oxidation with air or oxygen;
other oxidations include
chlorination and bromi-
nation reactions, for ex-
ample. And there may be
other examples of vapor-
liquid reactions, such as
hydrogenation reactions,
where addition of a new
chemical could improve
the safety of the process.
Addition of an ad-
ditional compound to a
reaction mixture to min-
imize hazardous reac-
tions may add complexity to the puri-
fication process, but it may be justified
by the increased safety.
Chens [5] paper on cyclohexane
oxidation illustrates transformation
or hybridization, in which the basic
chemistry is maintained, but the ad-
dition of another chemical component
transforms a potentially hazardous re-
action process into a much safer one.
2. Create a robust process to sta-
bilize or ensure dynamic stability.
Not all process designs are inherently
stable, and if the process design is to be
safe, the process engineer must ensure
dynamic stability as well as ensuring
that the steady-state mass and energy
balances are achieved. A number of
processes exist that have narrow safe-
operating limits but have been made
stable by the addition of control sys-
tems. Dynamic stability and control
of chemical processes has been exten-
sively studied [7].
Designing the process to be more
inherently stable to process upsets
with and without control systems is
clearly inherently safer, although this
principle is not addressed in most dis-
cussions of IS. The IS principle Ease of
Control has usually been interpreted
to mean a process with a control sys-
tem that the operator can understand
clearly and manage effectively.
CCPS briefly mentions the advan-
tages of designing processes that are
inherently more stable or robust [2]:
It is inherently safer to develop
processes with wide operating limits
that are less sensitive to variations in
the operating parameters...Sometimes
this type of process is referred to as a
forgiving or robust process.
Designing a robust process increases
inherent safety by imposing a change
in the process variables and is a form
of Moderate, a second-order inherently
safer design.
CCPS [2] also cites the work of
LuybenandHendershot[8] that high-
lights how minimization or intensifi-
cation in a reaction system that is in-
tended to improve process safety may
lead to less robust processes with the
opposite effect.
I propose here that Stabilize or En-
sure Dynamic Stability be added to
the list of IS concepts to be sure that
it is not overlooked in the quest for in-
herently safer processes.
Application of some of the other IS
principles can adversely affect the dy-
namic stability of a process. For exam-
ple, reduced liquid inventories (Mini-
mize) in a distillation train make the
process inherently safer from one per-
spective because the smaller process
inventory decreases the consequences
of loss of containment. However, the
smaller inventory also shortens the
response time of the distillation sys-
tem to process upsets, increasing the
risk that the basic control system will
not be able to restore the distillation
system to the desired operating condi-
tions and avoid a potentially unsafe
operating condition and/or an un-
scheduled process shutdown [2].
Chemical reactors carrying out
exothermic chemical reactions are
perhaps the best known examples of
processes that can be dynamically
unstable. Harriott [9] provides the il-
lustration of an irreversible first-order
chemical reaction being conducted in
a continuous-flow, stirred-tank reactor
(CSTR). Figure 3 shows the heat-gen-
eration rate by the chemical reaction
as a function of reactor temperature.
Heat-generation rates are low at low
Reactor temperature
A
C
D
Q
out
Q
out
Q
out
1
2
Heat removed
Q
heat generated
3
B
E
B
t
u
/
h
FIGURE 3. Heat-generation (Q
heat generated
) and heat-
removal (Q
Out
) rates as a function of reactor temperature
for three different heat-removal designs [9]. Heat gen-
eration is equal to heat removal at points A, C, D, E, and
B, so steady state operation is possible. However, the
reactor is not stable at point D without the addition of
controls or a modifcation of the design
temperatures, but as temperature
increases, the reaction rate increases
rapidly because of the exponential
dependence of the reaction rate co-
efficient on temperature. At higher
reactor temperatures, the shrinking
concentration of reactant (due to con-
version to product) reduces the reac-
tion rate and partially overcomes the
still-increasing reaction-rate coeffi-
cient. The heat-generation rate even-
tually reaches a constant maximum
value when the reaction has reached
complete conversion.
Figure 3 also shows three different
straight lines for the heat-removal
rate from the reactor for three differ-
ent reactor-cooling-system designs. To
achieve a steady-state energy balance,
the rate of heat generation (Q
heat gen-
erated
) by the chemical reaction must
equal the rate of heat removal (Q
out
)
by the reactor cooling system. That
energy balance occurs when the heat
generation curve intersects the heat
removal curve (where Q
heat generated
=
Q
out
). In Figure 3, the three differ-
ent heat-removal-rate lines intersect
the reactor heat generation rate curve
at five points. At four of these points
(A, B, C, E), the steady-state energy
balance solution is stable. At each of
these points, if there is an increase in
temperature, the rate of heat removal
increases more rapidly than the rate
of heat generation by the reaction and
the reactor temperature tends to re-
turn to the desired operating point.
Similarly, if the temperature drops
slightly at one of these four operating
conditions, the rate of heat removal
decreases more than the rate of heat
generation by the reactor and the tem-
perature trends back up to the desired
operating condition.
In contrast, point D in Figure 3 is an
inherently unstable operating condi-
tion even though the steady state rate
of heat generation by the reactor equals
the rate of heat removal by the reactor
cooling system. At point D, an increase
in reactor temperature increases the
rate of heat generation by the reactor
more than it increases the rate of heat
removal by the reactor cooling system,
so the reactor temperature increases
more instead of cooling back to the de-
sired operating point.
This further increase in reactor tem-
perature then leads to an even larger
rate of heat generation rate by the
reactor and additional heating of the
reactor. Without any effective control
actions, the reactor temperature will
tend to increase to point E in Figure 3
before it stabilizes.
Similarly, in Figure 3 a decrease in
reactor temperature at point D could
eventually lead to the reactor temper-
ature and conversion dropping back to
point C.
Clearly, of the three reactor cooling-
system designs represented by the
three straight lines in Figure 3, the
reactor cooling system represented by
line CDE is the least desirable from
a dynamic-stability perspective. Ad-
dition of an effective control system
might be able to provide dynamic sta-
bility but at the cost of installation
and maintenance of the control sys-
tem and at the cost of residual risk if
the control system fails.
Another example of potential
sources of process instability results
from efforts to improve energy effi-
ciencies in distillation trains through
heat integration. In these cases, the
feed to a column may be preheated
by the bottoms product of a second
downstream column. This may in-
crease the risk of process upsets due
to increased interactions between the
two columns.
While avoidance of add-on controls
has always been a goal of inherently
safer design, achievement of that goal
has seldom mentioned the concepts
of Ensure dynamic stability or Stabi-
lize as tools of the process engineer. It
should be considered when consider-
ing other means to assure inherently
safer processes during process design.
The process engineer should work
closely with the control systems engi-
neer to address the dynamic stability
of both the uncontrolled process and
the controlled process to ensure a ro-
bust process.
3. Limit hazardous effects during
conceptual and detailed engineer-
ing. David Clark published a seminal
paper [10] on the limitation of effects
when siting and designing process
plants. He reminds us that there is a
strong, non-linear decrease of fire, ex-
plosion, and toxic effects with separa-
tion distance. Comparatively small de-
creases in separation distance have a
major effect, while larger increases in
separation offer diminishing returns.
Methods,suchastheDowFireand
Explosion Index [11] and the Dow
Chemical Exposure Index [12, 13], pro-
vide quantitative screening estimates
of the hazards from various parts of a
chemical process. Other indices have
been developed and evaluated to per-
form a similar objective to the Dow in-
dices [1, 2, 14]. These screening tools
can identify those parts of a process
where increased separation distances
are needed to limit potential escala-
tion of an incident.
In one typical plant design, a 10%
increase in separation distances for
all units increases total plant invest-
ment cost by only 3%. Similarly, dou-
bling the separation distance for a
hazardous unit representing 10% of
the investment cost of the plant would
cost only 3% more. Because of the non-
linear effect of separation distance,
doubling the separation distance for a
hazardous unit could reduce explosion
overpressures on the adjacent units
by a factor of four or more.
The strong decrease in hazardous
effects with modest increases in sepa-
ration distances will often more than
justify increased capital cost.
Spacing also offers important ben-
efits in crane and other maintenance
access, ergonomic advantages and
decreased risk of incident escalation.
Future plant expansions or process
improvements are also facilitated, al-
though expansions that decrease spac-
ing may increase hazardous effects.
Tools for InherenTly safer Process PlanT DesIgn
Processhazardsreviews
Chemicalinteractionmatrices
DowFireandExplosionIndexand
ChemicalExposureIndex
Fire,explosionandtoxic-release
consequencemodelingandrisk
assessments
Layerofprotectionanalysis
Spacingtablesforunitsandfor
processequipment
Dynamicprocesssimulation
Inherentsafetyanalysis
Periodicdesignreviewsduring
productandprocessresearch,
developmentanddesign
Reviewsofplantsiting,plotplan,
equipmentarrangementand3-D
computermodels
Occupiedbuildingevaluation
anddesign
Areaelectricalclassification
Safetyintegritylevelassessments
andsafetyinstrumentedsystems
Humanfactorsreviews
Ergonomicsreviews
Safetycasedevelopment
Thedesignprocessitself
Applying different IS principles
As discussed, the different IS prin-
ciples are best applied at different
stages of the process plant timeline.
Although IS checklists are often used
at the screening process hazards anal-
ysis (PHA) level, much more is needed
throughout the development and de-
sign of a process plant.
For example, Substitute is best
done during the product and process
research phases before significant
investments of time and resources in
a particular product and process are
made. Hybridize or Transform is best
done during process research and de-
velopment, as is Moderate.
Minimize, Simplify, and Error tol-
erance have the best result when ap-
plied during the process development,
conceptual design and detail design
phases. Stabilize or Ensure Dynamic
Stability is also best done during de-
sign development.
Limitation of effects, which is closely
related to passive protection, has its
greatest impact during development
of the plot plan and equipment ar-
rangement.
IS processes and plants
As mentioned previously, the CCPS [2]
defines two levels of inherent safety:
First-order inherent safety results
from changes in the chemistry of a
process that reduces the hazards
of the chemicals used or produced.
Substitute or Hybridize efforts lead
to first-order inherent safety
Second-order inherent safety results
from changes in the process vari-
ables. Examples include Minimize,
Simplify and Stabilize the opera-
tions.
It is also helpful to distinguish be-
tween IS processes and IS plants.
Even when hazards cannot be
eliminated from the chemistry of
the process, the plant using the po-
tentially hazardous process can be
made inherently safer through ju-
dicious design.
Note also that even with IS process
chemistry, it is essential to employ
IS principles during the process and
plant design to ensure an IS plant.
Tools for IS plant design
There are a number of tools available
to aid in designing process plants that
are inherently safer (Box, p. 18). Al-
though inherently safer reviews are a
valuable tool for identifying opportu-
nities for improvement, it is important
to keep the principles of inherently
safer in mind throughout the design
process. n
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the process safety in-
sights from my colleagues at Aker Solutions and
at the leading operating companies whose facili-
ties we have helped to design, from Professors
Sam Mannan, Trevor Kletz, Ron Darby, Harry
WestandtheMaryKayOConnorProcessSafety
Center at Texas A & M University, and from
many others in the community of process safety
professionals. The financial support of Aker So-
lutions is also appreciated.
Author
Victor H. Edwards, P.E.,
is director of process safety
for Aker Solutions Ameri-
cas Inc., (3010 Briarpark
Drive, Houston, TX 77042;
Phone: 713-270-2817;
Fax: 713-270-3195; mail:
vic.edwards@akersolutions.
com). In his 28 years with
Aker, Edwards experience
includes process engineering,
safety management and pro-
cess, biochemical and environmental technolo-
gies. He has received numerous accolades in the
areas of safety and environmental engineering,
including five DuPont awards, and has contrib-
uted extensively to the engineering literature.
His earlier experience includes assistant pro-
fessor of chemical engineering at Cornell Uni-
versity, an assignment at the National Science
Foundation, pharmaceutical research at Merck,
alternate energy research at United Energy
Resources, visiting professor at Rice University
and process engineering at Fluor Corp. Edwards
earned his B.A.Ch.E from Rice University and
hisPh.D.inchemicalengineeringfromtheUni-
versity of California at Berkeley. A registered
professional engineer in Texas, he is an AIChE
Fellow, and a member of ACS, AAAS, NFPA,
NSPE, and the N.Y. Academy of Sciences.
References
1. Kletz, Trevor A., and Amyotte, Paul, Process
Plants a Handbook of Inherently Safer De-
sign, 2nd Ed., Taylor and Francis, Philadel-
phia, PA, 2010.
2. Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS),
Inherently Safer Chemical Processes A
Life CycleApproach, 2nd Ed.,AIChE, New
York, NY, 2009.
3. Hendershot, Dennis C., An overview of inher-
ently safer design, Process Safety Progress,
Vol. 25, No. 2, 98107, June 2006.
4. Dowell, III, Arthur M., Layer of protection
analysis and inherently safer processes, Pro-
cess Safety Progress, Vol. 18, No. 4, 214220,
Winter 1999.
5. Chen, Jenq-Renn, An inherently safer process
of cyclohexane oxidation using pure oxygen
An example of how better process safety leads
to better productivity, Process Safety Progress,
Vol.23,No.1,7281,March2004.
6. Mannan,Sam,Ed.,LeesLossPreventionin
the Process Industries, 3rd Ed., Elsevier But-
terworthHeinemann,Oxford,U.K.,2005.
7. Edgar, Thomas F., and others, Process Control,
Section 8 in Perrys Chemical Engineers Hand-
book, 8th Edition, Don W. Green, Editor-in-Chief,
McGraw-HillBook,NewYork,NY,2008.
8. Luyben, W.L., and Hendershot, D.C., Dy-
namic disadvantages of intensification in
inherently safer process design, Industrial
Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 43, No.
2 (2004) cited in CCPS, 2009.
9. Harriott, Peter, Process Control, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY, 1964.
10. Clark, David G., Applying the limitation of ef-
fects inherently safer processing strategy when
siting and designing facilities, Process Safety
Progress, Vol. 27, No. 2, 121130, June 2008.
11. Dows Fire and Explosion Index Hazard Clas-
sification Guide, 7th Ed., American Institute
of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY, 1994.
12. Dows Chemical Exposure Index Guide,
American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
New York, NY, 1994.
13.Suardin, Jaffee, Mannan, M. Sam, and El-
Halwagi,Mahmoud,TheintegrationofDows
Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI) into process
design and optimization to achieve inherently
safer design, Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, Vol. 20, pp. 7990, 2007.
14. Khan, Faisal I., and Amyotte, Paul R., How
to make inherent safety practice a reality,
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol. 81, No. 2, 216, February 2003.
Additional suggested reading
1. Edwards, David, Editorial Special Topic
Issue Inherent safety Are we too safe for
inherent safety?, Process Safety and Envi-
ronmental Protection Transactions of the
Institution of Chemical Engineers Part B,
Vol. 81, No. B6, 399400, November 2003.
2. Englund,StanleyM.,Inherentlysaferplants:
Practical applications, Process Safety Prog-
ress, Vol. 14, No. 1, 6370, January 1995.
3. French, Raymond W., Williams, Donald D., and
Wixom, Everett D., Inherent safety, health, and
environmental (SHE) reviews, Process Safety
Progress, Vol. 15, No. 1, 4851, Spring 1996.
4. Gupta, J.R., and Edwards, D.W., Inherently
safer design Present and future, Process
Safety and Environmental Protection Trans-
actions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers
PartB,Vol.80,115125,May2002.
5. Gupta,J.R.,Hendershot,D.C.,andMannan,
M.S.,TherealcostofprocesssafetyAclear
case for inherent safety, Process Safety and
Environmental Protection Transactions of
the Institution of Chemical Engineers Part
B, Vol. 81, No. B6, 406413, November 2003.
6. Hendershot, Dennis C., et al., Implementing in-
herently safer design in an existing plant, Process
Safety Progress,Vol.25,No.1,5257,March2006.
7. Kletz, Trevor A., Inherently safer design: The
growth of an idea, Process Safety Progress,
Vol. 15, No. 1, 58, Spring 1996.
8. Lutz,William K.,Take chemistry and phys-
ics into consideration in all phases of chemi-
cal plant design, Process Safety Progress, Vol.
14, No. 3, 153160, July 1995.
9. Lutz,WilliamK.,Advancinginherentsafety
into methodology, Process Safety Progress,
Vol. 16, No. 2, 8688, Summer 1997.
10.Maxwell,GaryR.Edwards,VictorH.,Robert-
son,Mark,andShah,Kamal,Assuringprocess
safety in the transfer of hydrogen cyanide man-
ufacturing technology, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, Vol. 142, pp. 677684, June 2007.
11.Overton, Tim and King, George M., Inher-
ently safer technology: An evolutionary ap-
proach, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 25, No.
2, 116119, June 2006.
12. Study, Karen, A real-llife example of choosing an
inherently safer process option, Process Safety
Progress, Vol. 25, No. 4, 274279, December 2006.
Note: This article is based on a paper presented
at the Mary Kay OConnor International Sym-
posium,TexasA&MUniversity,October27-28,
2009.
A
ccidents do happen. While not
everything can be predicted,
addressing safety concerns
throughout the design of a pro-
cess can help to prevent accidents
from occurring. Designing with safety
in mind can also help to minimize po-
tentially serious consequences that
would result if an accident did occur.
On April 12, 2004, toxic allyl alcohol
and allyl chloride were released from
a reactor at a facility in Dalton, Ga.
The consequences included injuries
and chemical contamination to people
and property in the surrounding area.
According to their report [1], the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Inves-
tigation Board (CSB) concluded that
better process design, engineering,
and hazard analysis would likely have
prevented the 2004 runaway chemi-
cal reaction and toxic vapor cloud re-
lease...
On March 23, 2005, an explosion at
a refinery in Texas City, Tex. killed 15
workers and injured 180 others when
flammable liquid and vapor overfilled
a blowdown drum during the startup
of the refinerys isomerization unit [1].
All of the fatalities and many of the
injuries occurred in and around trail-
ers that had been positioned near the
isomerization unit to support mainte-
nance activities on adjacent refinery
units. The CSB report on this incident
[1] recommended that new guidelines
be developed for the placement of
these and similar temporary struc-
tures around hazardous areas.
Having a procedure in place to pro-
mote safe process design can help
ensure that safety concerns are con-
sidered at appropriate phases in the
design. The methodology presented
here, as outlined in Table 1, may help
prevent accidents such as those in
Dalton, Ga. and Texas City, Tex. This
methodology applies to process de-
signs throughout the chemical process
industries (CPI), which include not
just chemical production, but also, for
example, wastewater-treatment fa-
cilities, pharmaceutical and food-and-
beverage plants. While following these
guidelines will cost time and money,
the practice can be a very inexpensive
way to help prevent the much more
costly consequences of not providing
the safest design possible.
Basic EnginEEring
Process flow diagrams
As a process engineer, there are two
types of flow diagrams that interest
me: the block flow diagram (BFD) and
the process flow diagram (PFD).
The BFD (Figure 1) presents an
overall picture of the process, show-
ing only major process steps. These
steps are shown as black boxes with
simple descriptions. Equipment can
be depicted singly or grouped together
as a system.
The PFD (Figure 2), meanwhile,
depicts major and minor equipment
with specific symbols that are typi-
cally used in the CPI. Equipment is
usually identified and shown with an
alphanumeric designation. The PFD
includes major and some minor pro-
cess streams as well as utility streams,
such as steam, condensate and cooling
media. This diagram can also be used
to show process safety requirements,
such as proposed locations for relief
valves. Often, a heat-and-material
balance and major control loops are
included.
The PFD should be used as the basis
for generating the more detailed pip-
ing-and-instrument diagram (P&ID).
Prior to P&ID preparation, the PFD is
reviewed by the design team and is-
sued for design (IFD), with a revision
number of zero.
At a minimum, the basic design
package should include the BFD and
the PFD. However, I believe that an-
other document, which takes the PFD
to a new level, better promotes a safe
process design. This document, which
I call the process definition drawing
(PDD), is not ordinarily a part of the
basic design package, but is a great
tool for the process design engineer.
The PDD includes operating-and-
Feature Report
30 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com DeCember 2006
cover story
Phil Leckner
CH2M Hill Lockwood Greene
Incorporating safety
considerations
throughout process
design lowers the risk of
a hazardous event
Designing for
A Safe Process
DistiIIation
ExampIe of a bIock fIow diagram
Feed
HP steam
Condensate
Condenser
LP steam
Water
Vent
DistiIIate
Receiver/
Pump
Bottoms
ReboiIer
Figure 1. Block flow diagrams give a
simple overview of the major steps in a process
Part 1
30-33 Ce 12-06.indd 30 11/22/06 4:35:40 Pm
design conditions for each equipment
item, each control-valve station and
all relief devices. The benefit of this
document is that the process engineer
can quickly recognize inconsistent or
conflicting operating-and-design con-
ditions. It helps the engineer think
about the process in terms of how
it will operate and what needs to be
done to make it safe.
Detailed engineering work is also
aided by the PDD, since much of the
information included on this docu-
ment will be used in the generation of
process-equipment, instrumentation
and safety-device duty specifications.
The PDD is a living document and
will change as the process design pro-
gresses. As such, it is often sketched
using rudimentary drawing software
rather than CAD, thereby making it
simple to construct and maintain.
Preliminary safety review
After the PFDs are created and ap-
proved for design, a preliminary safety
review (PSR) is undertaken.
The PSR is the gathering of docu-
mentation with an emphasis on pro-
cess safety. Included are items such as
the project scope definition, the pro-
cess design basis, the process descrip-
tion and a material safety data sheet
(MSDS) for each substance used. An
extensive list of documentation that
may be included in the PSR can be
found in Ref. [2].
The MSDS is an important docu-
ment that provides a wealth of in-
formation including the proper han-
dling of a substance, special storage
requirements (such as keep out of the
sun) and required personal-protection
equipment (PPE), such as breathing
apparatuses.
The MSDS also provides basic phys-
ical-property and toxicity data, expo-
sure limits and flammability ranges.
It may describe what to do in case of
spills. The manufacturer or supplier
of the raw materials and various web-
sites on the Internet are sources for
MSDSs. If the facility is producing a
finished product, then the plant owner
will have to develop an MSDS for
that product and make the document
available to potential users. Table 2
lists information typically found in an
MSDS.
Once the documentation is gath-
ered, the PSR is assembled into a
formal report and issued to all perti-
nent members of the design team for
comment. The report is given to proj-
ect management for distribution as a
revision 0 issue. Note that the PSR
is a living document and is subject to
change as the design progresses. The
PSR document is issued as soon as
feasibly possible because it will form
the foundation for the balance of the
safety review of the project.
Design safety review
Once the PSR is issued, the process
can be reviewed for major safety con-
cerns in the design safety review.
Using the most up-to-date version
of the PSR, all features associated
with safety, environmental and layout
issues are reviewed, including the fol-
lowing:
Defining the hazardous location
classification (HLC), or the electri-
cal area classification as it is some-
times called The HLC is used to
determine electrical-design criteria,
such as equipment that may require
explosion-proof motors. The HLC
boundaries should be shown on ap-
propriate documents such as the
PFD or equipment-layout drawings
(if available). One source of defini-
tions for HLCs can be obtained from
Ref. [3].
Locating major pressure-relief de-
vices, such as relief valves and rup-
ture disks, explosion panels and
flame arrestors These devices
should be indicated on the PFD
and, in more detail on the PDD. The
destination of the vent from these
particular safety devices needs to
be considered. The applicability and
use of alternate safety systems, such
as safety-instrumented systems
(SIS) is also evaluated at this time.
(For more, see Part 2 of this report,
p.34)
Evaluating the layout with respect
to minimizing hazards As noted
earlier in the Texas City, Tex. ac-
cident, personnel placement is a
very important consideration. For
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com DeCember 2006 31
Feed
ExampIe of a process fIow diagram
DWG No.
DistiIIate
DWG no.
DWG No.
1
2
A-01
T-02
T-01
P-01
HE-02
HE-01
FIC
FIC
FIC
PIC
LIC
x Ib/hr
x Ib/hr
x Ib/hr
LIC
LIC
TIC
q
HPS
FL
FL
N2
BD
LPS
LP BFW
HPC
T
T
P
P
q
T P
3
Bottoms
Figure 2. Process flow dia-
grams give more detail than
BFDs, and include at least
major process streams and
equipment items. Symbols that
are typical for the CPI are used
30-33 Ce 12-06.indd 31 11/22/06 4:36:16 Pm
equipment placement, the American
Petroleum Institute (API; www.api.
org) recommends that all equipment
with a ground area of 2,500 to 5,000
ft
2
should be considered part of the
same fire-relief scenario [4]. Deter-
mine if larger-sized equipment can
be moved outside the common fire
zone to reduce overall relieving ca-
pacity. Also be cognizant of where
chemicals are stored in proximity to
each other. You may not want acids
stored near bases, for example.
Locating flares in safe areas, taking
into account their radiation effects
at ground level.
Evaluating the need for and place-
ment of, fire and gas detectors (for
more, see p.18).
With the major pressure-relief de-
vices located and the operating and
design conditions fully defined, it is
appropriate to evaluate modifications
that might make the system safer.
For example, determine if there are
safety advantages to changing stor-
age requirements from concentrated
solutions to more dilute solutions, or
vise-versa. Evaluate the advantages
and disadvantages of breaking unit
operations into smaller, more discrete
pieces to make process equipment,
such as heat exchangers and reactors,
smaller.
Preliminary hazard analysis. Fi-
nally, some type of preliminary hazard
analysis (PrHA) should be undertaken
before moving into the detailed pro-
cess engineering phase of the project.
During a PrHA, team members vi-
sualize ways in which a process design
can malfunction or be operated incor-
rectly. The PrHA can take one of many
forms, such as a pre-HAZOP, a what
if, failure mode-and-effects analysis
(FMEA) or FMEA check list. The vari-
ous types of hazard analyses that are
acceptable to the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) are outlined in Refs. [2] and
[5]. The PrHA is performed on the de-
tailed PFD that is issued for design.
The documents collected during the
PSR and the PDD provide reference
materials. Note that a preliminary or
IFD issue of the P&ID may have been
developed by this time and if so, would
be part of the PrHA.
At the conclusion of the design safety
review, all documents and results are
collated and issued. This compilation
is included as part of the front-end de-
sign package and the design proceeds
to the next phase of the project, the
detailed process engineering.
DetaileD engineering
Piping and instrument diagram
At the start of the detailed process-
engineering phase of design, all out-
standing issues and especially those
brought up during the design safety
review are examined and addressed.
The P&IDs, PFDs and the PDDs are
updated as required. The P&IDs are
then reviewed in a formal setting as
a team, which should include the pro-
cess, mechanical, and piping and in-
strumentation engineers.
The review will expose any last min-
ute safety and design issues that must
be addressed before the more detailed,
and required, process hazard analysis
(PHA) is undertaken. Changes are
documented by again updating the
P&IDs and PFDs. I suggest that these
documents be issued with a separate
revision number established exclu-
sively for the PHA.
The process hazard analysis
The PHA evaluates the design in
terms of both safety and operability.
The analysis should be performed on
the process, as well as instrumenta-
tion and control systems, such as the
digital control system (DCS).
PHAs are mandatory for all plants
that fall within the scope of OSHA 29
CFR 1910.119 [5]. This scope applies
to plants that meet the following two
criteria:
1. Those whose processes involve one
or more of certain chemicals (listed
in appendix A of the regulation), and
in quantities at or above the thresh-
old given
2. Those whose processes involve flam-
mable liquid or gas onsite in one lo-
cation in a quantity of 10,000 lb or
more with the exception of:
a. Hydrocarbon fuels used solely for
workplace consumption as a fuel
b. Flammable liquids stored in at-
mospheric tanks and kept below
their normal boiling point with-
out the aid of chillers or refrigera-
tion
Facilities that do not fall within 29 CFR
1910.119 would still benefit greatly
from the PHA if not for the safety as-
pects of the process, then for process
operability. I cant stress this enough:
not being required to do a PHA by law
should not exclude you from doing one
to ensure that your process is indeed
safe in design and operation.
The team make-up. The PHA team
should include a facilitator and a scribe
(who serves the function of record-
ing secretary), the design firms area
process engineer, the plant process
engineer and representatives from
the plants safety-and-environmental
and operations-and-maintenance de-
partments. If vendor packages are in-
volved, a vendor representative is also
advised as a team member. An exten-
sive list of possible participants can be
found in Ref. [2]. The PHA team make-
up and the extent of their efforts will
vary based on the nature and complex-
ity of the process design.
The facilitator should be chosen
with the following criteria in mind:
The person should be knowledgeable
in the type of PHA to be performed
The person should not be intimately
involved in the process design (thats
what the process engineers are for)
The person does not necessarily need
to be very knowledgeable about the
particular process to be reviewed
The facilitators function is to guide
Cover Story
32 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com DeCember 2006
Table 1.
A methodology to promote
A sAfe process design
I. Basic process engineering
Create the process flow diagram
Perform a formal review of the pro-
cess flow diagram
Conduct a preliminary safety re-
view
Perform a design safety review
II. Detailed process engineering
Create the piping and instrumenta-
tion diagram
Conduct a formal P&ID review
Perform the process hazard analy-
sis on the process
Perform the process hazard analy-
sis on the control system
III. Implement a management of
change procedure
30-33 Ce 12-06.indd 32 11/22/06 4:37:10 Pm
the team, keep the PHA on track and
motivate participation. The facilitator
is not the person who brings up all of
the issues. A facilitator who is too in-
volved with the process is analogous
to someone proofreading his or her
own material things are going to be
missed that would otherwise not.
Preparation. Having the right docu-
mentation available is key to a smooth
PHA. The team should at a minimum
have all the documents from the PSR
and the DSR, as well as the P&IDs
and PFDs, plot plans, equipment lay-
outs, hazardous classification draw-
ings, operating-and-maintenance pro-
cedures, batch sheets (if applicable), a
summary of relief-device calculations
and specifications for equipment, in-
strumentation and piping.
A PHA can be very time consum-
ing and expensive to implement. Poor
documentation and the failure to per-
form a comprehensive P&ID review
prior to the PHA can contribute sig-
nificantly to the cost. More time spent
on the earlier steps mentioned in this
methodology can reduce the cost and
duration of the PHA.
Documenting the PHA. One com-
mon problem is that many PHAs al-
most become P&ID reviews and fix it
sessions. Any problems identified with
the P&ID that need fixing should be
recorded for further action and not
discussed in detail during this analy-
sis. Note that once the P&ID fix is
implemented, the change needs to be
re-evaluated.
After the PHA is completed, a re-
port is issued documenting what was
checked and any actions that need to
be addressed, such as additional relief
devices, changing instrumentation
and adding information to what will
eventually become standard operating
procedures. These action items are to
be addressed in a timely manner and
the plant design should be revised as
required. Once all issues are addressed
and design changes implemented, the
design becomes fixed in terms of
safety. The design documents should
be issued as process safety manage-
ment approved.
More specifics on PHAs can be found
in Refs. [2] and [5] and in an abundant
number of books and government pub-
lications (OSHA), that the reader is
encouraged to research and review.
ManageMent of change
As in all designs, things change even
after the PHA is completed. These
changes must be captured as they
can affect the safety of the design and
create new problems. Management
of change (MOC) procedures capture
these changes and should be strictly
followed.
A MOC procedure is simply a writ-
ten way of documenting and inform-
ing people about changes made to the
design after the PHA. The MOC may
even outline when a change neces-
sitates a new PHA. For example, if a
valve is added to a line that was not
there when the original PHA was per-
formed, a PHA must be performed on
this area of the design to ensure that
no additional safety hazards were
introduced, or if they were, are ad-
dressed accordingly.
There is no single way to design
and implement a MOC procedure. It
is up to the discretion of the project
team as to how it should be done. The
MOC complexity will depend on the
complexity of the process. The key is
to ensure that the MOC procedure is
easy to follow and that it allows easy
documentation of all required activi-
ties and includes a system for approv-
als by the appropriate project team
members [6]. n
EditedbyDorothyLozowski
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com DeCember 2006 33
Table 2. INFORMATION TypIcAlly FOuNd IN AN Msds
Item Remarks
Chemical name and any
common names
The common name will be the same name on
the label
Date of preparation or revision The date the MSDS was prepared or revised
List of contacts that can pro-
vide more information
Physical characteristics Includes smell, color, appearance, flash point
and vapor pressure
Physical hazards For example, if the substance is subject to vio-
lent reactions such as explosions or fires
Health hazards Describes if and how a substance can cause
harm to human health and also provides
symptoms of exposure
Route of entry information Describes how the substance can enter the
body, for example by ingestion or inhalation
Exposure limits The maximum amount of exposure a person
should have to the substance
Carcinogenic status Whether the substance causes cancer
Safe handling and use Explains precautions and protective measures
needed when using and handling, including
spill control
Control measures Suggested engineering controls, work practices
and personal protective equipment
Emergency and first aid pro-
cedures
How to deal with releases and exposure
Author
Phil Leckner is a senior
process engineer with CH2M-
HILL Lockwood Greene
(Phone: 732-868-2277; Email:
Philip.leckner@ch2m.com).
Phil has over 30 years expe-
rience in process design and
project engineering, and com-
missioning and startup for the
chemical, petrochemical, food-
and-beverage and bio-pharma-
ceutical industries. Over the
past 10 years, he has been deeply involved with
process-safety issues with emphasis on relief-
system design. He has been involved in a number
of PHAs, including serving as HAZOP and What
if? facilitator. Phil received his B.S.Ch.E. from
Lowell Technological Institute, which is now part
of the University of Massachusetts.
References
1. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Inves-
tigation Board website (www.csb.gov)
2. The Center for Chemical Process Safety,
Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Proce-
dures with Worked Examples, 2nd ed.,
AIChE, 1992.
3. National Fire Protection Association, NFPA
70, National Electric Code, Chapter 5,
2005.
4. American Petroleum Institute, Recommended
Practice 521, Guide for Pressure-Relieving
and Depressuring Systems, 4th ed., March,
1997.
5. The Occupational Safety and Health Ad-
ministration, Process Safety Management
of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, in 29 CFR
1910.119, OSHA, Washington, D.C., 1992.
6. The Center for Chemical Process Safety,
Plant Guidelines for Technical Manage-
ment of Chemical Process Safety (Revised
Edition), AIChE, 1992, 1995.
30-33 Ce 12-06.indd 33 11/22/06 4:38:02 Pm

Piping Design and Operations Guideobook - Volume 1 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Piping Design and Operations Guideobook - Volume 1 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Volume 1

Bingham Plastic limiting viscosity, Pas

98I8 CE Web House Ad.indd I S/?4/0 II.0.IS AM

EXCLUSIVE MANUFACTURER OF COMPUTRAC

MOISTURE ANALYZERS AND JEROME

MERCURY AND HYDROGEN SULFIDE ANALYZERS

FIGURE 1. Any kind of significant

Potrebbero piacerti anche