Revision A

Page 2

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General
1.2 Requisitioning Procedures

2.0 Custodian

3.0 Purpose

4.0 Application

5.0 Criticality Rating

5.1 Safety
5.2 Availability
5.3 Design Maturity
5.4 Manufacturing Complexity

6.0 Design

6.1 Process
6.2 Thermal
6.3 Mechanical

7.0 Design Verification

8.0 Roles and Responsibility

8.1 The Purchaser

8.2 The Manufacturer
8.3 The Inspecting Authority
8.4 The Discipline Engineer

9.0 Documentation

10.0 Criteria for Selection of Prospective Manufacturers

10.1 Technical
10.2 Quality

11.0 Criteria for Selection of Inspecting Authorities

112.0 Material Traceability and Certification Requirements

13.0 Proprietary Equipment and Packages

14.0 Nozzle Loads

 Revision A
Page 3

15.0 Sour Service

16.0 Fatigue Service

17.0 Approval to Deviate

18 Revision History

19.0 Glossary

20.0 Bibliography

20.1 National / International Standards

20.2 QGPC Documents

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Typical Vessel Applications of Criticality Ratings

Appendix 2 Guidance Notes for the Preparation of a Requisition

Appendix 3 Typical Scope of Work for Independent Design Verification of Pressure

Vessels by an Inspecting Authority.

Appendix 4 Criticality Assessment of Pressure Vessels

Appendix 5 Guidance Notes for the Technical Appraisal of Quotations

 Revision A
Page 4

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General

This Design Guide provides the overall QGPC policy on the engineering and procurement of
pressure vessels. It also provides guidance and clarification on the roles and responsibilities of
parties involved in the procurement of pressure vessels and on the use and specification of
QGPC Standards.

The term 'pressure vessels' is used in this document to mean all fabricated items for the
containment of fluid at pressures exceeding 103 kPa gage except rotating machines and piping
systems or equipment made entirely from standard piping components which are classified as
piping items.

This document is intended to be used for all new pressure vessels requisitioned directly or
requisitioned as part of an equipment package required both for new projects and for existing
facilities onshore and offshore.

This Design Guide specifies the procedures to be used when requisitioning equipment, as well as
specifying the alternatives available, in order that company requirements are satisfied.

The requirements of this document are based on the following QGPC Guidelines:
• ES.5.06.0003 Pressure Vessels – Design and Fabrication
• ES.5.06.0004 Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers – Design and Fabrication
• ES.5.06.0005 Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers – Design and Fabrication

These Standards deal with technical requirements for the items of equipment as well as other
associated non-technical requirements, including:
• Quality assurance
• Documentation
• Inspection
• Material traceability
• Weight control
• Packing and preservation

The concept of criticality is used within the above mentioned QGPC guidelines in order that the
minimum acceptable level of technical and non-technical requirements is specified for any
particular item. It is intended that the responsible adoption of this approach will ensure that the
required minimum standards are met for all applications without over-engineering and thereby
ensure a cost-effective approach.

1.2 Requisitioning Procedure

The following schedule describes, in chronological order, the recommended procedure for the
development of a requisition for a pressure vessel. Following this procedure will minimise the
amount of abortive work and rework required. This procedure will normally be carried out by
the Purchaser's engineer responsible for requisitioning the vessel.
 Revision A
Page 5

a) Receive information on the process requirements for the vessel (capacity, fluids to be
contained, pressure, temperature etc), normally on a process data sheet and check its
completeness.
b) Determine the material (or class of materials) from which the vessel is to be made by
reference to a project material specification or by consultation with the Purchaser's or
QGPC metallurgists, as required.
c) Carry out, or cause to be carried out, a preliminary design of the vessel to determine its
major dimensions, approximate shell thickness etc.
d) Determine the 'criticality rating' of the vessel.
e) Prepare, or cause to be prepared, an outline sketch of the vessel or a preliminary issue of
the general arrangement drawing.
f) Consult with the responsible piping/layout engineers to obtain, if possible, an estimate of
the likely maximum nozzle loads. (It should be noted that reliance on standard nozzle
loads specified in ES.5.06.0003 for new compact piping arrangements typical on offshore
platforms may result in ultra-conservative mechanical designs where lower nozzle loads
may have been acceptable, particularly for onshore or replacement applications).
g) Complete the appropriate data/requisition sheet for the vessel. Where nozzle loads have
been established, these should be quoted in the relevant section of the data/requisition
sheet.
h) From a knowledge of the criticality rating, material, basic shape and shell thickness, select
suitable vendors - normally not less than three nor more than five.
i) Obtain advice from QGPC on the Inspecting Authority to be employed.
j) Compile the requisition which should meet the requirements of Appendix 2.

2.0 Custodian

The Custodian of this guideline is EE, who is responsible for the accuracy and quality of its
contents and for its future revisions, where these are required to reflect industry trends or
changes to QGPC business practices.

3.0 Purpose

The purpose of this guideline is to specify QGPC’s policy for the engineering of pressure vessels
including heat exchangers and to provide guidance on the roles and responsibilities of all parties
involved in the procurement of pressure vessels including heat exchangers, and on the use of
relevant QGPC Standards.

4.0 Application

This guideline shall be used by project teams, business units and Contractors or Consultants
employed by them. This document shall not be issued to Manufacturers.

This Design Guide is to be used during the requisitioning of all new pressure vessels, it has no
effect on existing pressure vessels.
 Revision A
Page 6

5.0 Criticality Rating

The QGPC Standards listed in Section 1 of this Design Guide require that the criticality of each
pressure vessel is specified in the requisition. The responsible engineer shall review the duty of
each item together with its relationship (process and spatial) to other equipment and to the
facility as a whole, and then take a judgement regarding the criticality of each item in accordance
with the Criticality Assessment of Pressure Vessels procedure (see Appendix 4 of this Design
Guide). In some instances, other procedures for assessing criticality may be used.

In making an evaluation in accordance with the Criticality Assessment of Pressure Vessels

procedure, the guidance notes/definitions in the following Sections 5.1 to 5.4 should be taken
into account.

In making a criticality assessment the requisitioning engineer should compare his subjective
assessments with other applications. Some typical applications are given in Appendix 1 of this
Design Guide for guidance.

It is envisaged that most 'process' pressure vessels will be assessed as being either 'critical' or
'very critical' with only very few exceptional vessels being assessed as 'extremely critical'.

Most 'utility' pressure vessels are expected to be non-critical.

5.1 Safety

The Criticality Assessment of Pressure Vessels procedure (Appendix 4) requires the

consequences of vessel failure to be categorised into one of the following:
• Minimal risk to personnel
• Limited risk to operating personnel
• Significant risk to operating personnel
• High risk to operating personnel, or limited risk to the general public or significant damage
to the environment

To categorise each item it is necessary to take into account both the nature of the contents (eg
toxic, hazardous, innocuous, etc) and the amount of stored energy. A high-pressure vessel
containing gas will have substantially more stored energy than a vessel containing only liquid at
the same pressure.

It is also necessary to consider the spatial relationship of each item to the rest of the facility and
the general public, etc.

5.2 Availability

The Criticality Assessment of Pressure Vessels procedure (Appendix 4) requires the

consequence of a vessel failure to be categorised into one of the following:
• Negligible loss of availability of the facility
• Minor loss of availability of the facility
• Significant loss of availability of the facility
• Major loss of availability of the facility
 Revision A
Page 7

It is necessary therefore to know how each item fits into the process flow scheme and the
consequence of an item being inoperable.

Any item which is a 100% spare can be considered to cause negligible loss of availability. Other
items, which may not affect overall availability of the process facility in the short term if they
can be bypassed, may be considered to cause minor loss.

5.3 Design Maturity

The Criticality Assessment of Pressure Vessels procedure (see Appendix 4) requires the design
maturity of each item to be categorised into one of the following:
• A proven design
• A proven design with minor amendments, but for the same application
• A proven design modified for a new application
• A new design based on an established code or standard
• A new design evolved from first principles

Most pressure vessels will be categorised as being "a new design based on an established code or
standard". However, it is expected that some items could be categorised as a "proven design", or
a "proven design with minor amendments", particularly those items which are a Vendor standard
product for which there is proven experience.

Any vessel requiring finite element stress analysis or fracture mechanics assessments should be
considered as a new design evolved from first principles.

5.4 Manufacturing Complexity

The Criticality Assessment of Pressure Vessels procedure (Appendix 4) requires the

manufacturing complexity of an item to be categorised into one of the following:
• Manufacture by conventional machining and fitting techniques: minimal fabrication
• Conventional fabrication: carbon and austenitic steels
• Conventional fabrication of thick (over 50mm) carbon steels or sophisticated materials
• Complex fabrication, or the use of thick sophisticated materials

Conventional fabrication' is intended to include normal fabrication methods used for relatively
thin-walled vessels, utilising conventional welding, heat treatment and NDT techniques.

Complex fabrication' is intended to include thick-walled applications (greater than 100mm) or

fabrication necessitating special techniques such as special heat treatments, high alloy cladding
or weld overlay, or applications requiring special NDT techniques.

Simple materials' is the term applied as a general description of materials commonly used for the
fabrication of pressure vessels and of which reputable fabricators have extensive experience.
They are intended to include carbon steels and 18/8 type austenitic stainless steels.

Sophisticated materials' is the term applied as a general description of materials which are not
commonly used for the fabrication of pressure vessels and of which many fabricators may have
 Revision A
Page 8

little or no experience. Such materials include clad plate, nickel steels, super austenitic and
duplex stainless steels, non-ferrous etc.

6.0 Design

6.1 Process

The process design of a pressure vessel (or heat exchanger etc) will normally be carried out by
the process engineering department of the Purchaser or by a Consultant employed for the
purpose. The results of this process design should be recorded on suitable process data sheets
and are not covered by this document.

6.2 Thermal

The Contractor shall be responsible for the thermal design/rating of all shell and tube heat
exchangers, other than those in non-critical duties. When the Contractor does not have the
necessary expertise, to the satisfaction of QGPC, the thermal design/rating shall be sub-
contracted to a Consultant approved by QGPC or to the manufacturer if has proven capability.

For air-cooled heat exchangers, plate heat exchangers, other proprietary exchangers and
exchangers in non-critical duties, the Manufacturer shall be given the responsibility to produce
the thermal design/rating.

6.3 Mechanical

The mechanical design of a pressure vessel shall normally be the responsibility of the
Manufacturer. However, the Purchaser shall be responsible for performing sufficient mechanical
design as is necessary to ensure that the vessel is adequately defined in the enquiry to allow
selection of suitable bidders and enable them to bid against a defined scope of work on a fair and
equal basis.

Where the design of the vessel is influenced by the availability of specific manufacturing
facilities/techniques (for example, the use of special forged nozzles), the design shall always be
the responsibility of the Manufacturer.

When the Purchaser elects to perform and be responsible for the mechanical design (for
example, where the vessel is part of an equipment package), the requirements of 6.3 (1) to 6.3
(3) shall apply.

(1) The requisition shall clearly state that the Purchaser is responsible for the mechanical
design and all the information necessary for the Manufacturer to fabricate the vessel shall
be included.

(2) Requests for deviations from or changes to the design to suit Manufacturer's practice shall
be made at the proposal stage and shall be agreed and confirmed in writing before order
placement.

(3) Fabrication drawings may be produced either by the Purchaser or the Manufacturer as
agreed and shall comply with the Purchaser's design and any approved deviations. It shall
be the Purchaser's responsibility to ensure such compliance.
 Revision A
Page 9

7.0 Design Verification

It is QGPC policy that all aspects of the mechanical design of all pressure vessels, including
compliance with the appropriate QGPC standards, shall be independently verified by an
Inspecting Authority regardless of the design code used.

The intent of QGPC's policy may be satisfied for standard "off-the-shelf" pressure vessels such
as halon spheres, accumulators, bottles etc, if the supplier provides documentary evidence that
the design has been verified by a QGPC approved independent third party.

8.0 Roles and Responsibility

8.1 The Purchaser

The Purchaser will normally be QGPC or a design contractor appointed by QGPC. However,
where vessels are requisitioned by a Vendor of an equipment package as a sub-order, the Vendor
of the package shall become the Purchaser.

The Purchaser shall be responsible for furnishing the Manufacturer and the Inspecting Authority
with a technical specification for the vessel. This technical specification will normally be the
purchase requisition, including data/requisition sheets. As a minimum it is the Purchaser's
responsibility to specify the following:

(1) Completed data/requisition sheets together with a vessel layout/assembly drawing.

(2) All conditions that the Purchaser requires to be considered during the design or design
check of the vessel, including the normal design conditions, any transient and/or adverse
conditions, and any other applied loadings.

(3) The number, title and revision number of the applicable QGPC Standard or Standards.

(4) Any additional requirements not stated in that Standard or Standards.

Additionally, the Purchaser shall furnish to the Manufacturer the name of the Inspecting
Authority appointed by QGPC.

When the Purchaser elects to take responsibility for the design of the vessel, the Purchaser shall
be additionally responsible for ensuring that all necessary design information is included in the
requisition. This shall include all design information required by the Manufacturer to construct
and test the vessel and also that required by the Inspecting Authority to verify that the design and
construction of the vessel is strictly in accordance with the requirements of the requisition. The
Purchaser shall also maintain a design data book which shall include a copy of all design
calculations/analyses for the vessel.

The Purchaser is responsible for selecting a competent Manufacturer (see Section 10) to carry
out the design, manufacture, and testing of the vessel. The Purchaser is additionally responsible
for monitoring/auditing the Manufacturer to ensure that he fulfils his responsibilities in a
thorough and workmanlike manner.

8.2 The Manufacturer

 Revision A
Page 10

The Manufacturer of the vessel is responsible for the design, manufacture, inspection and testing
of the vessel in accordance with the requirements of the purchase order, except where the
Purchaser elects to take responsibility for the design.

Any approvals given by the Purchaser and/or the Inspecting Authority shall not relieve the
Manufacturer of any responsibility whatsoever.

The Manufacturer is responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals from the Inspecting
Authority.

8.3 The Inspecting Authority

The Inspecting Authority (IA) shall be appointed by QGPC (see Section 11), and shall be
responsible for verifying that the vessel is designed, manufactured, inspected and tested in
accordance with the requirements of the purchase order.

It is recommended for major projects that, while pressure vessels are being procured and
manufactured, there should be an IA representative in the QGPC project team.

The IA shall:
• Review enquiry requisitions for compliance with QGPC requirements
• Attend pre-award meetings
• Arrange and chair pre-inspection and pre-production meetings at Vendor's works
• Review the quality systems and technical abilities of proposed sub-vendors for compliance
with specified requirements
• Review vessel designs and verify compliance with specified requirements. (See Appendix 3
for scope of design review)
• Witness the performance of quality related activities, inspections and tests
• Verify that vessels are manufactured, inspected and tested in accordance with specified
requirements
• Resolve all technical queries raised by manufacturers, if necessary by reference to design
contractors or QGPC
• Review and approve specified quality verifying documentation before release of vessels

It is permissible that the role of the IA is performed by two separate organisations. One
organisation is being responsible for design verification and the other for inspection.

When the Inspecting Authority is also the Purchaser (Contractor) he may not elect to perform
the mechanical design.

8.4 The Discipline Engineer

A suitably qualified and experienced pressure vessel engineer employed by QGPC, or a design
contractor as appropriate, shall be responsible for:
• Deriving and specifying the criticality rating for each item (see Section 5)
• Preparing a complete specification/requisition for each item (see Appendix 2)
• Selecting competent vendors, as appropriate
 Revision A
Page 11

• Performing technical evaluation of tenders (see Appendix 5)

• Reviewing interface documentation and confirming its acceptability

When the Purchaser is also acting as the Inspecting Authority, the role and responsibilities of the
engineer shall be extended to include those activities stated in Appendix 3 of this document.

9.0 Documentation

All documentation that is required to be prepared by the Manufacturer, in accordance with the
design code and the purchase requisition, shall be subject to the approval of the Inspecting
Authority.

The only documents requiring the additional review/approval of the Purchaser (when not also
acting as the Inspecting Authority) are defined in the applicable QGPC standards but typically
include:
• The general arrangement drawing
• The quality and quality control plan
• Deviation requests

The approval of the Purchaser does not signify compliance with the purchase order.

It should be noted that review by the Purchaser is for quality assurance purposes only, assuming
that the Inspecting Authority is technically responsible for all aspects of design checking. It is
therefore not expected that a complete verification/check of every document by the Purchaser
will be necessary. The Inspecting Authority is responsible for checking for compliance with the
purchase requisition. Non-compliances highlighted by the Purchaser should be reconciled with
the Inspecting Authority as well as with the Manufacturer.

10.0 Criteria for Selection of Prospective Manufacturers

10.1 Technical

All prospective Manufacturers shall have been shown to be technically acceptable for each
specific vessel. Acceptance shall be assessed by reference to both their design and
manufacturing capabilities as indicated by previous experience or by an engineering technical
appraisal to the satisfaction of QGPC.

The Purchaser's requisitioning engineer shall review each vessel and assess its requirements
regarding the Manufacturer's design capability in one of the following categories:

NONE - The Manufacturer has no design capability.

SIMPLE CODE - The Manufacturer has limited design capability suitable for simple
code calculations which include:
- pressure thickness;
- nozzle reinforcement;
- simple nozzle loadings.
 Revision A
Page 12

COMPLEX CODE - The Manufacturer has a design capability suitable for designs
involving all aspects of the design code but does not require an in-
house capability for carrying out special analysis, including local
loads which are outside the limits of the analysis methods given in the
design code.

SPECIAL - The Manufacturer has a design capability suitable for all designs
involving all aspects of design codes and in-house computer stress
analysis etc.

THERMAL - The Manufacturer has the capability of carrying out thermal design of
heat exchangers.

All prospective Manufacturers shall have design capabilities which satisfy the requisitioning
engineer's assessed requirements for each vessel to the satisfaction of QGPC.

Manufacturers who do not have suitable previous experience to the satisfaction of QGPC, and
who have not otherwise been shown to be competent for both the design and manufacture of
each particular vessel by an engineering technical appraisal, shall not be considered.

10.2 Quality

Only Manufacturers who have an adequate quality system shall be considered.

For vessels in 'very' or 'extremely critical' duties (criticality ratings 1 or 2) the Manufacturer
shall hold an ASME N stamp.

For vessels in 'critical' or 'non-critical' duties (criticality rating 3 or 4), the Manufacturer shall as
a minimum hold an ASME U stamp.

Only where there are insufficient Manufacturers to constitute a competitive Vendor list that
meets the above quality requirements, then the available Manufacturers full quality appraisal
report shall be reviewed and the implication of their non-compliances shall be considered for the
particular item.

11.0 Criteria for Selection of Inspecting Authorities

The Inspecting Authority has sole responsibility for verifying that the design and construction of
a pressure vessel complies with the requirements of the requisition. Therefore it is necessary for
the organisation fulfilling the function of the Inspecting Authority to be competent. Only those
organisations that have been shown to be competent by previous experience to the satisfaction of
QGPC shall be considered.

The criticality rating of the range of items and the complexity of their design shall be considered
when selecting the Inspecting Authority. Items requiring special design techniques, finite
element, fatigue assessments etc, require the appointment of an Inspecting Authority who has
suitable proven expertise in these technique. It is also necessary to define clearly the required
scope of work for the Inspecting Authority. A typical scope of work is included in Appendix 3 of
this Design Guide for guidance purposes.
 Revision A
Page 13

Any proposed Inspecting Authority must submit for both QGPC approval, a detailed Quality
Assurance Plan to illustrate how they will satisfy the requirements of Appendix 3 of this
document, against the required scope of work.

When considering the competence of a potential Inspecting Authority, the

qualification/experience of the Inspecting Authority surveyor responsible for checking and
monitoring non-destructive testing should be reviewed.

12.0 Material Traceability and Certification Requirements

QGPC Standards relate three levels of material traceability and certification to the criticality of
an individual vessel, as follows:

MATERIAL
TRACEABILITY
Criticality Rating 1 2 3 4
Pressure -Retaining Material A A B B
Material welded directly to Pressure -Retaining
B B B C
Material
Structural material not welded to Pressure -
C C C C
Retaining Material
Vessel internals not welded directly to Pressure -
C C C C
Retaining Material

NOTES: (A) Material shall be fully traceable to the source of original manufacture by
industrial practice and all testing shall be witnessed by any QGPC approved third
party.

In specific cases, when specified in the requisition, the Purchaser shall nominate a
specific third party to witness some or all of the testing.

(B) Material shall be traceable to the source of original manufacture by industrial

practice, eg cast number etc, and all testing shall be witnessed by a material
Manufacturer's representative who is independent of production.

(C) Material shall have a certificate of compliance from the supplier or

Manufacturer.

Classification 'A' is intended to permit the use of material that has Lloyd's or other third-party
certification to the satisfaction of the Purchaser. It is not intended that a specific third party will
be nominated to witness testing, which would require the material to be specially manufactured.
Stock materials with Lloyd’s witnessed certificates are acceptable. However, it has been shown
from experience that the repeatability of the test results stated on these certificates is not
necessarily ensured. Therefore where increased assurance of traceability and repeatability is
required it should be clearly stated in the requisition that a specific Purchaser-nominated
inspection agency is required to witness test-piece preparation and testing for pressure-retaining
materials. It is expected that this will only be necessary on very few extremely critical items,
when absolute assurance of material properties is required.

Classification 'B' is intended to allow the use of materials which are certified by the material
Manufacturer and which have mill test certificates confirming that all tests were witnessed by a
 Revision A
Page 14

representative of the Manufacturer's company who is independent of production. Where stockist-

supplied material is used and original mill test certificates are not available, copies are
acceptable provided that they are endorsed by an independent third party as a true and accurate
copy.

13.0 Proprietary Equipment and Packages

When pressure vessels are requisitioned as part of a process package (eg glycol dehydration
packages) or when pressure vessels contain proprietary internals (eg oil/gas separators or filter
separators etc), special attention shall be given to the requisitioning philosophy/procedure to be
adopted to ensure that the Manufacturer of the pressure vessel meets the technical and quality
requirements (see Section 10 of this Design Guide).

Many process design houses do not have any vessel fabrication capability, others only have a
limited fabrication capability which may or may not meet QGPC's technical and quality
requirements as specified in this Design Guide. Process design houses with manufacturing
capabilities which satisfy technical and quality requirements as specified in this Design Guide
should be selected where possible.

The requisitioning philosophy may be selected from one of the following:

(1) Place an order on a design house for process design and the supply of proprietary
internals only. A separate purchase order should then be placed for the manufacture of the
pressure vessel, including the installation of internals. The process design house should
provide full details of the supports for the internals and should be given the opportunity of
approving the final vessel design to ensure that the process guarantee is validated.
(2) Requisition the package or proprietary item from an acceptable vessel fabricator. In this
case, it is necessary for the fabricator to obtain the process design, guarantee and supply
of the internals from a process design house directly, and therefore a list of acceptable
design houses should be included in the requisition. It should be noted that this procedure
may not be effective where the cost of the pressure vessels is only a small proportion of
the total cost of the package.
(3) The design of the internals may be carried out by the purchaser, (eg the Contractor) with
the supply and installation as in (1) or (2) above.

Note that in each of the above requisitioning philosophies the purchaser shall ensure that the
process design calculations are submitted for review and approval by QGPC or their nominee.

To enable a commercial comparison to be made, process design houses with suitable

manufacturing capabilities should be required to provide separate prices for:
• Process design;
• Supply of proprietary internals; and
• Process guarantee.

Orders involving vessel fabrication on process design houses without acceptable manufacturing
capabilities shall be avoided. However, where it is necessary, a list of approved vessel
fabricators should be included in the requisition.
 Revision A
Page 15

Where pressure vessels are requisitioned as part of a package the Purchaser shall specify the
criticality rating of each vessel. The Purchaser shall also ensure that the package Vendor uses
only those vessel fabricators who meet the applicable requirements of this document.

14.0 Nozzle Loads

If actual nozzle loads are not available, the applicable QGPC Standard requires all pressure
vessels to be designed to withstand a set of standard nozzle loadings (forces and moments).
These standard loadings are for design purposes only and have no other significance. They are
necessary because actual nozzle loadings calculated by analysis of the piping system attached to
the nozzle are often not available at the vessel design stage. Therefore, to enable the vessel
design to be finalised, standard loadings must be assumed for design purposes. Subsequently the
piping system needs to be designed so that these standard loadings are not exceeded.

Where actual nozzle loadings are available at the vessel design stage, these should be used for
design in preference to the standard loadings and should be specified in the requisition.

When the application of the standard nozzle loadings necessitate thickening of the pressure-
retaining shell of the vessel, the imposed loads shall be reviewed with the aim of reducing the
design loads. It may be possible to predict loadings for design purposes which are substantially
lower than the standard nozzle loadings.

Where actual loadings cannot be incorporated without increasing the pressure-retaining shell
thickness of the vessel, the Contractor should ensure that the piping analysis used to generate the
loads takes into account the flexibility of the vessel nozzle. Simple piping analysis normally
assumes vessel nozzles to be fixed points, i.e. anchors. BS 5500, Appendix G, provides a
method for predicting nozzle flexibility and the incorporation of this flexibility into piping stress
analysis may substantially reduce the calculated loadings, particularly if they are self-limiting.
Vessel shell thickness should not be increased for nozzle loads until it has been shown that, even
allowing for nozzle flexibility, the vessel will be over stressed. It should be noted that by
increasing the vessel shell thickness the nozzle becomes more rigid and therefore a better
approximation to a fixed point or anchor thereby, in practice, reducing the benefit of any nozzle
flexibility which may limit actual applied loadings.

The values of nozzle loadings used for design purposes shall be clearly stated on the vessel
drawings for future reference.

15.0 Sour Service

All pressure vessels in sour service (H2S partial pressures exceeding 0.05 psia) are required to
meet the requirements of NACE-MR-01-75 as well as being constructed from materials which
are not susceptible to hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC). The detail requirements for testing
materials for susceptibility to HIC are specified in the applicable QGPC Standard 153. These
tests are to be carried out by laboratories which, to the satisfaction of QGPC, have had
experience in testing for HIC susceptibility. This may limit the available sources of raw
materials such as plate, pipe, forgings etc.
 Revision A
Page 16

16.0 Fatigue Service

When the service/duty of a vessel means it will experience fluctuating service conditions, the
need for a fatigue assessment shall be considered. It should be noted that all vessels which are
criticality rating 1 or 2 shall be designed for a minimum of 500 full range pressure cycles. It is
not expected that more full range cycles (start-ups) would be necessary for normal operational
requirements during a typical 25 year design life, unless the vessel is in a batch process or a true
cyclic duty (eg absorption/regeneration).

17.0 Approval to Deviate

Strict compliance with this guideline is required. Any deviation must obtain prior written
approval from its custodian.

18.0 Revision History

A log is kept of the revision history of this document, and incorporated in the electronic
“readme” file (ES.5.06.0001R).

19.0 Glossary

Within the context of this Design Guide the following words shall have the meanings stated:

"must/shall" - Indicates a mandatory requirement.

"should" - Indicates a preferred course of action.

"may" - Indicates one acceptable course of action.

"approval" - Indicates agreement/sanction and shall be in writing only.

QGPC - Qatar General Petroleum Corporation

Purchaser - The organisation responsible for performing the purchasing

function e.g. QGPC or a QGPC appointed Contractor,
Consultant or Agent.

Vendor - The supplier or a potential supplier of materials or equipment -

not necessarily the Manufacturer.

Manufacturer - The company responsible for the manufacture - not necessarily

the Vendor.

Contractor - The QGPC appointed main Contractor for a defined piece of

work.

Sub-contractor - A company awarded a contract by a Contractor to do part of the

work awarded to the Contractor by QGPC. The work of the Sub-
contractor is carried out under the direction and control of the
 Revision A
Page 17

Contractor. Under its model contracts QGPC has the right to

review all proposed Sub-contractors, and sub-contracts.

Consultant - A company awarded a contract by QGPC for the company to

advise or give guidance on specific subjects. The Scope of Work
may include instructions to act as an Agent for QGPC (see
Agent).

Agent - The legal status of any person or company authorised by QGPC

to act on QGPC's behalf on the matters specified in the agency
agreement or contract. Third parties can usually rely on the
Agent as acting on behalf of and with the authority of QGPC,
provided that the Agent acts within the scope of his apparent
authority from QGPC.

Inspecting - The organisation(s) appointed by the Purchaser, responsible for

Authority verifying that the item is designed, fabricated, inspected and
tested in accordance with the requirements of the purchase order.
Note that separate organisations may be appointed for design
verification and fabrication inspection.

20.0 Bibliography

The following standards, codes and specifications shall, to the extent specified herein, form a
part of this Design Guide. Except where a specific edition or revision is identified by date or
revision/edition number, the edition in effect at the time of the contract shall govern.

20.1 National/International Standards

ASME - Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

Section VIII Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels

BS 5500 - Unfired fusion welded pressure vessels

API 660 Shell and Tuber Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Services

API 661 - Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Services

NACE MR-01- - Sulphide Stress Cracking Resistant Metallic Materials for Oil Field
75 Equipment

TEMA - Standards of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association

20.2 QGPC Documents

ES.5.06.0003 - Pressure Vessels – Design and Fabrication

ES.5.06.0004 - Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers – Design and fabrication

ES.5.06.0005 - Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers - Design and fabrication

QGPC STD.153 - Engineering Std. – Material for Sour Service

 Revision A
Page 18

APPENDIX 1

TYPICAL VESSEL APPLICATIONS OF CRITICALITY RATINGS

This Appendix is for the guidance of the Purchaser's requisitioning engineer when assessing criticality
ratings of pressure vessels. See also Section 6 in this Design Guide.

SIZE
Length Design Design Shell Special Duty Criticality
Item ID (Tan/Tan) Pressure Temp Material Thickness Rating
(mm) (mm) (Bar G) (°C) (mm)
Min/Max
XYZ
Project
First-Stage 2350 7550 28 -6 / 112 CS + SS 19 Sour Service 2
Separator Clad
A – 1010
Second-Stage 1845 5535 7 -6 / 107 CS + 10 Sour Service 3
Separator Glass
A – 1020 Flake
Third-Stage 1900 5430 3.5 -6 / 95 CS 10 3
Separator
A – 1030
Test 1850 5545 16 -6 / 112 CS + SS 16 Sour Service 2
Separator Clad
A – 1050
ABC Project
A – 1213 14 1631 3200 132.3 -29 / 80 CS 75 Fatigue Duty 2
Gas (Pressure
Scrubbers Only)
Gas Plant
Onshore
C - 26014 D 2160 12100 121 -62 / 350 CS 108 Fatigue Duty 1
Molecular (Pressure and
Sieve Vessels Temperature)
Enhanced
Impact
Requirements

NOTE: CS = Carbon steel SS = Stainless steel

 Revision A
Page 19

APPENDIX 2

GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A REQUISITION

1.0 Format of a Requisition

A requisition shall typically contain the following:

• A material requisition front sheet

• A set of data/requisition sheets for the item(s) (including an outline sketch of the vessel)
• A set of specific notes/comments/deviations to the referenced QGPC Standards
• A copy of the referenced QGPC Standards. (where Vendors are already in possession of the
latest edition of the QGPC Standards their inclusion in the requisition is not necessary)
• A blank QGPC "Weight/Centre-of-Mass Data Sheet", a specimen of which is included in
the relevant Standard (for offshore applications only)

The inclusion of additional documents should be avoided. It should be noted that the relevant
QGPC Standards specify the minimum requirements for quality assurance, documentation,
material traceability and certification etc. In exceptional circumstances, additional requirements
in excess of those specified in the relevant QGPC Standard may be specified as a deviation to
that Standard. It should be the intention of the requisitioning engineer to minimise the number
and extent of deviations to the applicable Standards.

2.0 Checklist of Items to be considered when preparing a Requisition

The requisitioning engineer shall specifically consider the following points when preparing a
requisition:

• Criticality assessment for each item (see Section 5 of this Design Guide)
• The specification of all necessary design conditions (see Section 8.1 of this Design Guide)
• Vendor selection (see Section 10 of this document)
• Inspecting Authority selection (see Section 11 of this document)

The requisitioning engineer shall additionally consider with the quality engineer any requirement
for monitoring/auditing of the Inspecting Authority.
 Revision A
Page 20

APPENDIX 3

TYPICAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION OF

PRESSURE VESSELS BY AN INSPECTING AUTHORITY

1.0 General

The Inspecting Authority shall carry out a review of the pressure vessel purchase order and
ensure that the Authority has access to all relevant specifications and standards.

The Inspecting Authority shall ensure that personnel carrying out design verification and
manufacturing surveillance are suitably qualified/experienced in accordance with the
requirements of the purchase order and applicable QGPC Standards. The identity of the
Inspection Authority's representative carrying out each part of the design verification shall be
recorded on his portion of the work.

The Inspecting Authority shall only sign the certificate of code compliance, with regard to
design, when it has completed the independent verification of the design's strict conformance to
the purchase order and relevant QGPC Standards (and to any approved deviations/concessions).

Design verifications shall be approved by an independent senior engineer or engineering

manager.

The Inspecting Authority shall retain evidence that a completely independent design verification
has been carried out and that all of the parameters specified in the rest of this Appendix have
been considered.

2.0 Mechanical Design Check

The Inspecting Authority shall independently verify that the mechanical design of all parts of the
vessel fully complies with all requirements of the purchase requisition for all of the loading
conditions specified.

As a minimum all of the following loading conditions shall be considered for each vessel (as
applicable):

• Internal and/or external design pressure at design temperature(s)

• Maximum static head
• Weight of vessel
• Maximum weight of contents under operating conditions
• Weight of water under hydraulic pressure test conditions
• Hydraulic pressure test
• Wind loading
• Earthquake loading
• Other loads supported by or reacting on the vessel, including load-out forces, lifting forces,
lifting lugs
• Local loads, including nozzle loads and other structural loads
 Revision A
Page 21

• Shock loads
• Thermal stresses caused by temperature difference, including transient conditions (i.e.
depressurisation), and by differences in coefficients of thermal expansion etc
• All operating combinations of the above loading conditions

The Inspecting Authority shall ensure that all assumptions used in the design are properly
validated and evidence of validation is retained and referenced.

3.0 Drawings

The Inspecting Authority shall carry out a check of all general arrangements and detail
fabrication drawings to verify that the design is strictly in accordance with the requirements of
the purchase order and applicable QGPC Standards. Assumptions stated in the design
calculations shall be properly translated into requirements stated on fabrication drawings.

4.0 Materials

The Inspecting Authority shall verify that all materials used in construction fully comply with
the requirements of the purchase order and with applicable QGPC Standards.

5.0 Welding

The Inspecting Authority shall independently verify that all weld procedure specification and
associated qualifications are strictly in accordance with all the requirements of the purchase
order, and applicable QGPC Standards.

6.0 Non-destructive Testing

The Inspecting Authority shall independently verify that all NDT procedures to be used during
fabrication by the Manufacturer or his Sub-contractors/suppliers are suitable for providing the
required level of quality assurance.

7.0 Heat Treatment

The Inspecting Authority shall independently verify that all heat treatment procedures to be used
during fabrication by the Manufacturer or his Sub-contractor/suppliers are strictly in accordance
with the requirements of the design code and applicable QGPC Standard.

8.0 Dimensional Inspection

The Inspecting Authority shall verify that the final as-built dimensions of the pressure vessel,
taking into account tolerances, does not affect its design integrity (special attention shall be
given to vessels subject to external pressure).

9.0 Installation of Vessel Internals

The Inspecting Authority shall verify that:

• All bolts used for the attachment and/or construction of internals are fully threaded
• All fasteners are securely tightened
• All fasteners are positively locked in position
 Revision A
Page 22

Where the purchase documentation requires a leak proof seal (i.e., a chimney tray in a contactor
tower), the seal shall be leak tested in the supplier’s works. Where this is not possible, as in the
case of a vertical vessel, the test shall be carried out on site, with the vessel vertical, preferably
after installation in its final position.

10.0 Deviations/Concessions

The Inspecting Authority shall not approve any deviations/concessions from the requirements of
the purchase order without the specific approval of the Purchaser.

The Inspecting Authority shall immediately notify the Purchaser of any deviation/concession
request from the Manufacturer which contravenes the requirements of the design code or which,
in the Inspecting Authority's opinion, makes the vessel unfit for its intended purpose.
 Revision A
Page 23

APPENDIX 4

CRITICALITY ASSESSMENT OF PRESSURE VESSELS

1.0 Objectives

The objectives of this procedure are to provide the QGPC project and the design contractor with:
• A quantitative method of evaluating the criticality of equipment and materials
• Guidance in the use of criticality ratings for the definition of QA requirements in materials
requisitions

2.0 Application

Criticality evaluation shall be applied to all equipment and materials purchases.

Where a design contractor has an established method for determining and using criticality
ratings, this procedure shall be used as the basis of evaluating his method.

2.1 Definitions

Criticality Rating (Quality): The relative importance of an item to the overall safety,
performance and availability of the structure, system or installation of which the item is a part.

Requisitioning Engineer: The design engineer responsible for compiling the requisition.

2.2 Responsibilities

The requisitioning engineer shall be responsible for performing the criticality evaluation,
assigning in accordance with this procedure.

The responsible QGPC discipline engineer and QA engineer (or their nominees) shall review the
criticality evaluation and rating and the QA requirements; this shall form part of the materials
requisition review, and shall be approved by the project engineer.

3.0 Procedure

The criticality evaluation and rating, and the specification of the required level of QA, shall be
done in parallel with compiling the materials requisition.

Addendum 3 illustrates the application of the procedure.

3.1 Criticality Evaluation

The requisitioning engineer shall determine the criticality rating for each item of the materials
requisition using the criteria shown in Addenda 1 and 2. The evaluation 'score' system is to
define the relative importance of the criteria to QGPC and to ensure uniformity in applying the
special requirements in 3.3 below. It must not supplant an experienced engineer's assessment of
criticality to the project.
 Revision A
Page 24

The requisitioning engineer must consult the appropriate engineers to:

• Confirm the safety rating and identify any special requirements, such as identification as a
critical item by HAZOP study
• Confirm the availability rating, from the availability assessment

3.2 Application of Criticality Rating

The criticality rating shall be used to determine the appropriate QA requirements from
Addendum 3. The requisitioning engineer shall also use the criticality rating to select the
appropriate Quality Plan requirements for inclusion in the requisition.

3.3 Special Requirements

When high criticality evaluation scores occur in any of the evaluation categories, action shall be
taken on the aspects of safety, availability or design maturity as described below.

3.3.1 Safety

The requisitioning engineer shall identify the critical features of the equipment and shall ensure
that the specified inspection and tests adequately examine those features. In consultation with the
appropriate discipline engineer, he shall specify any necessary further design assessment or
additional tests or both.

3.3.2 Availability

The requisitioning engineer shall consult the project team engineer with responsibility for
reliability in order to include suitable availability requirements in the specification. These
requirements shall take maintainability or accessibility considerations into account or both.

3.3.3 Design Maturity

The requisitioning engineer shall consider specifying additional features in consultation with the
appropriate discipline engineer, such as:
• Extended performance testing
• Model testing
• Demonstration of fault finding techniques
• Additional pre-commissioning tests
• Destructive testing of critical components

These must be selected with due regard to the degree of maturity of the design and the
experience available of the equipment under consideration.
 Revision A
Page 25

3.4 QA Review

The design contractor's QA engineer shall review as part of the requisition the criticality
evaluation and the resulting criticality rating. He should also ensure that a reasonable uniformity
of approach is achieved across all disciplines.

3.5 Project Team Review

When reviewing the requisition, the results of the criticality evaluation shall be reviewed by the
QGPC project team or their nominees. In particular, the QA engineer shall ensure that the
criticality rating and Quality Plan requirements are acceptable and consistent with the technical
specification. The QA engineer shall also ensure that, when appropriate, the necessary
appraisals of the proposed vendor quality systems are scheduled and arranged.
 Revision A
Page 26

ADDENDUM 1
CRITICALITY EVALUATION CRITERION

EVALUATION
CRITICALITY EVALUATION CRITERION
SCORE
SAFETY

Failure of the item would cause:

• minimal risk to personnel 1
• limited risk to operating personnel 2
• significant risk to operating personnel 4
• high risk to operating personnel, or limited risk to the general public,
or significant damage to the environment 6
AVAILABILITY

Failure of the item would cause:

• negligible loss of availability 1
• minor loss of availability 2
• significant loss of availability 4
• major loss of availability 6

DESIGN MATURITY

The item will be manufactured to:

• a proven design 0
• a proven design with minor amendments, but for the same 2
application
• a proven design modified for a new application 3
• a new design based on an established code or standard 4
• a new design evolved from first principles 6
MANUFACTURING COMPLEXITY
• Manufacture by conventional machining and fitting techniques
0
where conformance to requirements can be adequately established by
inspection or tests conducted on finished components or assemblies

• Manufacture includes conventional fabrication and welding of

carbon and austenitic stainless steels 2

• Manufacture includes conventional fabrication and welding of thick

(over 50 mm) carbon steel or sophisticated material such as clad 4
steel, inconel or steels tested for hydrogen induced cracking
• Manufacture includes the use of complex fabrication, welding, heat
treatment or testing (eg. special non-destructive testing (NDT)
techniques) or the use of thick sophisticated materials 6
 Revision A
Page 27

ADDENDUM 2
CRITICALITY RATING

EVALUATION CRITICALITY CRITICALITY

SCORE RATING

above 20 Extremely Critical 1

17 - 20 Very Critical 2

10 - 16 Critical 3

less than 10 Non-Critical 4

ADDENDUM 3 - RECOMMENDED QUALITY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO

CRITICALITY RATING

CRITICALITY RATING
QA REQUIREMENT 1 2 3 4

1 Vendor Quality Appraisals reqd for all tenderers not already Yes Yes Yes No
approved.

2 Vendor Quality Plan required. Yes Yes No No

2a Vendor Quality Control Plan Required. Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 Vendor designs subject to approval. Yes Yes Yes Yes

4 Vendor procedures (eg welding NDT) subject to approval. Yes Yes Yes Yes

5 QA will participate in Vendor Selection. Yes Yes Yes No

6 QA will attend Pre-Inspection Meeting. Yes Yes Yes No

7 Key tests and inspections will be witnessed at Vendor's works. Yes Yes YES No

8 QA Audits will be performed. Yes Yes No No

9 Items will be released by QGPC (or his nominated) Inspector. Yes Yes Yes No

10 Sample inspection is permitted on arrival. No No No Yes

 Revision A
Page 28

APPENDIX 5

GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE TECHNICAL APPRAISAL OF QUOTATIONS

When carrying out a technical appraisal of a quotation the following shall be specifically
addressed:

1.0 Technical Compliance with the Requisition

It shall be confirmed that the Vendor's quotation includes the intended scope of the requisition.
Specific attention should be given to the supply of miscellaneous internals and external clips etc.
which may not be detailed in the requisition.

It shall be confirmed that the Vendor fully understands the requirements of the requisition,
including the detailed requirements of the applicable QGPC Standards. It is often necessary to
have a discussion with the Vendor's engineers in order to ascertain that they have a good
understanding of the requirements.

2.0 Technical Acceptability of any Deviations

The technical acceptability of any proposed deviations shall be confirmed. Proposed deviations
from the requirements of QGPC Standards should be discussed with the custodian of the
Standard. Any agreed deviations from the applicable QGPC Standard should be clearly
highlighted in the purchase issue of the requisition.

3.0 Deficiencies in the Vendor's Quality System

Any known deficiencies in the Manufacturer's quality system shall be reviewed as required by
Section 9 of this Design Guide.

Any additional inspection/auditing requirements deemed necessary to maintain the required

quality from each Vendor shall be advised to the buyer. The buyer shall include the additional
costs due to these inspection/auditing requirements in the commercial tender evaluation.

For example, a Manufacturer's quality system which is deficient in the area of Sub-contractor
control could necessitate full Sub-contractor inspection by the Purchaser-appointed Inspecting
Authority. Deficiencies in a Manufacturer's document control procedures may necessitate spot
audits at an appropriate time to ensure that all the latest information is available and being
worked to, etc. The extent and scope of additional inspection/monitoring/auditing should be
agreed with the quality assurance engineer.

4.0 Sub-vendors

The technical acceptability of all proposed Sub-vendors/Sub-contractors shall be confirmed.

Particular attention shall be given to sub-vendors/Sub-contractors involved in design, welding or
heat treatment.