Comparison of Fiberglass Pipe Joint Methods

[Angsi]

Application: Offshore
Service: Firewater System

I have been hearing so much from Fiberglass pipe vendors about their products' superiority over the rest. One manufacturer keep claiming that their butt and wrap joint method is superior compared to the adhesive (taper/taper, taper/straight) methods. I have read many articles but none is conlcusive in saying that one joint is superior compared to the other.

I have limited experience using products from manufacturers who advocate the use of butt and wrap joints.

Can anyone who have used Ameron's Bondtstrand, Fiberbond or Smith Fiberglass share their experience with me? Which one of these has been the least troublesome during hydrostesting and commissioning?

 

[SJones]

Firstly, make sure the pipe, fittings, and joints (any type) have the necessary performance qualification data to comply with ISO 14692 that will then put them on an equal basis. Watch out for the need to have the pipe fire tested and select the correct type of test. Then bear in mind that if you get untrained, unqualified fitters putting the piping system together then it doesn't matter what type of joint you have, you will get problems. My last project offshore Iran used Ameron Bondstrand taper - taper joints in platform firewater systems and, on the whole, performed very well after the fitters were trained by Ameron and qualified in accordance with UKOOA (precursor of ISO 14692). If you are still wondering, take a look at ISO 14692-4 Annex C Guidance for use of jointing methods.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/

 

[Angsi]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the input. We have used Amerons' 2416 epoxy and phenolic (jet fire tested) series for our wet and dry systems in the past.

For the Firewater System, a surge analysis was performed taking firewater pump acceleration time into cosideration and the study recommended installation of some air relief valves and the timing before the overboard dump valve should close. The surge loads were then transfered into Caesar II for further analysis and then final "additional" pipe support recommendations were made.

However, things were not that easy. We had many joint failures. The platform was constructed off a remote yard owned by Hyundai. This platform can be considered as a pilot production platform for the operating company that I am working for at present.

We were uncertain whether the failures experienced earlier were due to workmanship or inherent fault in the joint method.

Thanks for clearing my doubts.

With regards to the surge analysis, was a similar study performed at your end? Any information shared will be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[SJones]

I am unaware of any surge analysis being performed for the wet and dry systems. Perhaps we were just fortunate. Part of the project was put together by HHI under "less than ideal" conditions in Iran using Future Pipe Industries material and we had that working OK for a couple of years through numerous system tests.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/