Developing Pipe Specifications 2

[myname_earl]

Has anyone been tasked with developing pipe specifications before? I've been asked to implement pipe specifications for our site maintenance and project teams to use. The origin of the request is that there are currently 103 pipe specs that are scattered throughout our P&IDs. This came from several buy and sells where each company had their own specs, never replaced the last guys' and eventually built it up to the 103 variations. The current company has ~30 specs that require 3 sister sites and corporate approval to modify or to deviate from and can take months/year to implement. They are not updated and include incomplete specs. The worst example is the Caustic spec doesn't even call out pipe material and only lists some valves. The current owner is also too cheap to pay someone like E2G or PIP for new specs.

I don't know the best way to go about this, I have 80% of the specs developed but feel it is an unnecessary risk to implement them without at least a peer review. I've played conservatively and picked pipe schedules that are as thick or thicker than current specs call for depending on the service. I also dread fabrication requests for SCH 10 SS pipe as it seems to be a constant fight of distortion or working with an 'egg' shaped pipe; so I removed it for my own liking as well as the fitters. I am using materials/components that we currently use like valves that are set up in stores - we at least have a history of these items rather than me playing SME for valve functions and materials; if there is a desire to improve then I'd consider it later but an entire site is a large elephant to eat.

I enjoy the challenge but want to make sure I have any gaps covered

 

[1503-44]

Nice. A job for a lifetime! And apparently plenty to eat. How do you like your elephant?

Develop your specs according to your needs.
Start with examining your services, power, chemicals, refrig, pipelines, oil, gas, etc.
Matching up with the various design codes.
Then segregate your product classifications, haz, corrosive, steam, combustible, liquid, gas, etc. and lastly
Your service conditions, low, medium high, pressures and temperatures etc.



--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[mk3223]

IMO, here are some points for considering,
- Organize a team and involve local SMEs across three sites
- Define a goal, role & responsibility, a possible schedule, etc
- List all specs per historical projects for all three sites for future reference
- Group the specs for the similar services and identify the differences if any

 

[XL83NL]

The current owner is also too cheap to pay someone like E2G or PIP for new specs.

PIP specs are actually quite cheap. I don't see how any engineer, no matter how experienced, can make similar specs less cost heavy. The only thing the engr is needed for is reviewed them an incorporating them in an overall system.

Huub
- You never get what you expect, you only get what you inspect.

 

[LittleInch]

I'm a bit lost here.

You say 103 specs which is a lot, then mention 30?

Many will be the same in terms of materials, but just different pressure class?

Looking through the pipe material you should be able to group sets together so that one new pipe spec covers the historical other specs?

Review of anything like this is a must though - we all make mistakes and especially when copy and pasting you either end up with very thick pipe which isn't needed or make an error and then someone orders a load of the wrong stuff.

See if you can figure out which ones are used the most and start there to optimise what you're buying.

But it sounds like a mammoth task, especially for a cheapskate owner....

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Krausen]

I've developed pipe specs from scratch working for smaller companies & have also worked with many of the majors pipe specs. But I agree with XL83NL, buy the PIP standard pipe specs as a starting point & build it from there as a starting point. Very good value for the money.

 

[myname_earl]

I feel you would be amazed at the disconnect from corporate to process within this company. Currently, ANY expense must be approved by a global board located in EU. I had a shop visit for a vessel build and was declined $40 for lunch between my coworker and I. The worst I've heard was in 2008(?) they stopped paying for the office coffee and were requiring employees to buy their own to save some money

 

[myname_earl]

Inch, hopefully this makes more sense -

-6 owners since 1965.
-300+ pipe specs totalling across those owners.
-103 of those 300 are actually listed on our P&IDs. (some still call for asbestos gaskets and square head bolting!!)
-current owner brought ~30 (part of the 300 summation).

What I would think to happen as the place is bought and sold is to do a mass sweep of the P&IDs and change the old specs to the next company's relative spec. e.g. BP had a spec called AA1, and the new owner should have replaced the spec with their own iteration (AAAA1).

What's really stupid is some of the specs from BP to current owner are verbatim besides names and maybe some minor items. I guess everyone wants to have their own footprint.

 

[LittleInch]

Ah, so is this a refinery or chemical plant or something like that which has been passed around the different parties? No wonder it's a mess.

It's always amazed me the way some companies and people concentrate on the minute things and miss the big picture.

It's as if they think it's their money going out of their pocket. Yet $150MM for a plant refurb - wave it through.

Many pipe specs come from one of the bigger design houses and everyone just copies it but gives it a new pipe spec number....



Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[mk3223]

It’s common that an old plant do have several different Specs referred on the current operation Units which were built by the different EPC through the years. It was supposed to benefit the Company by saving the cost and schedule with little sacrifices, so the project might start the plant for production ASAP.
Now, it can be a right time to the Company to unify these Specs and Standards applying to all common operation units in the different locations, which will have benefits to manage and control the O&M, facilitate the communication and lessons learned among the different plants

 

[myname_earl]

Chemical plant specifically... I definitely noticed both of these companies are pulling specs from the same place, BP just actually cared and did it right from what I see.

The 30 specs that are supposed to be the current use are probably worse just because it looked like we purchased the specs and never actually looked to see what makes them and they are incomplete or don't make sense. Another flaw I'm seeing is the lack of communication and standardization between 3 (mostly) identical plants. The other US site is our closest relation and will at least communicate. I found out right after being assigned the new pipe spec project that they don't even use the current owners specs and still us the BP specs from 1992. So they avoid the deviation and change problem to the specs but aren't working to the engineering practices we are supposed to operate to. This is a much bigger cultural problem that I feel everyone is avoiding including the corporate FEMI group, so our response was if no one is working to the same standards given by the company then we'll at least try to make it right at our site

 

[1503-44]

It's quite common to have different specs, depending on what was current at the time of construction, with updates only on safety related items, if that. Likewise nobody replaces parts of their house every time a new building code revision is issued.

Of course you may find many differences, if you have a global footprint, especially where different design codes might apply. And the transfer of specs across country borders may not be seamless. Be careful with that aspect, especially small dimension pipe and fittings. I have noticed differences with flange bolt patterns, etc.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."