EN 13480 or ASME B31.3 3

[Smith55]

Hi All,

We have a project in Europe for an energy storage application. As we have some international projects in the pipeline, we are considering designing the piping to ASME B31.3. I understand this to be an acceptable and a common approach in some sectors in Europe, provided compliance and conformity assessment in accordance with PED.

I would like to better understand the pros and cons of using ASME B31.3 versus following the EN 13480 code in a European setting.

In an older thread that I came across, there was reference to an EEMUA publication on this topic (publication 202), but it seems this publication has since been withdrawn. Wondering can anyone suggest some similar guidance document on this topic.

Any advice appreciated.

Many thanks.

 

[HTURKAK]

I would suggest you to look,

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE DET NORSKE VERITAS DNV-RP-D101

You may search the web if free or not. Section (2.4 Piping design codes ) of this document compares the subject design codes.





Use it up, wear it out;
Make it do, or do without.

NEW ENGLAND MAXIM

 

[1503-44]

Is it pipe in a confined plant, or a pipeline outside a plant or confined space?

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

 

[Smith55]

Thanks for the reference to the DNV document, I was able to get a copy which is very helpful.

1503-44: This is piping inside a plant for a thermal energy storage application.

If I understand correctly, if opting to use ASME codes in Europe, it is advisable for us to engage with our notified body for PED compliance at the engineering stage to validate the design code and piping material specifications to be used and understand any additional requirements on top of ASME B31.3 for compliance with the essential safety requirements of the PED.

 

[1503-44]

Can you say which country?

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

 

[Smith55]

UK

 

[LittleInch]

I'm pretty sure you can use either.

XL83NL is the only one I know here who has experience of both to say if one is easier to use than the other in practice.

Done much searching on this yet?
Pretty sur[tt][/tt]e it will have been discussed before

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

 

[XL83NL]

There's a bunch of older threads indeed (some of which I may have participated in) that contain some useful guidance. See e.g. these Google-hits.
The last few years, Ive found that for moderate piping systems (say PN10/16) and typical materials, EN 13480 has become 'better' in the sence that defining a good pipe spec thats 'workable' and both economically good has become better. EN 13480 also has a lot more rules than B31.3. But, my preference still goes to B31.3.

What Ive found is that maintenance of the Code committees for B31 in general, is very good. For EN standards, a lot of things seem very random, and not properly worked out. Things like typo's, layout issues, incorrect or incomplete nomenclature, very slow updates to inconsistencies of code improvements etc give (me) the impression the code itself does not really get the attention it needs. I may be completely wrong here, but that's the impression I get from e.g. the support site, response (or lack thereof) to inquiries, etc.

B31.3 Subgroup N, the subcommittee which is responsible for the maintenance of B31.3 Appendix N, has done a lot of work over the last few years to improve and update Appendix N. Currently, there's one section in App. N on B31.3 w/ PED. You can expect a lot of updates to App N in the next B31.3:2024 edition, one of which (the largest I think) is about using B31.3 w/ PED. That will be the new paragraph N301. A lot of the main topics/key issues for B31.3 w/ PED will be written down in there. In essence, N301 will be the culmination of a lot of stuff already written here on eng-tips.com.

If you're able to share more specific details on the piping scope of your project (what materials, pressures and temperatures), I may be able to provide you with specific guidance.

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

 

[Smith55]

XL83NL - thank you very much for the link to the older threads, that's excellent. I'll work through those to educate myself and get back to you for any further queries.

In terms of specifics, we have a number of different services, but at the most extreme ends we have cryogenic service in SS304, design temperature -196 Deg. C, design pressure up to 200 barg. Then at the other end of the scale we have high temperature service in low alloy (C-0.5Mo), design temperature up to 460 Deg C, design pressure up to 200 barg.

Very helpful advice, thank you.

 

[XL83NL]

304 is doable and creep steel also, depending on the specific grade. However such high pressures are tricky. Flanges are less easy available than the equivalent pressure class in ASME. Another issue I can imagine is using type A or B fittings. B is desired to make sure you have no derating of the fitting, requiring a bump in wall thickness (this mismatch in ID). But B can be difficult to source.
On one occasion we required type B fittings in DN50, 1.4404. Upon material receipt it turned out they were machined from bar and actually weren’t wrought tees but just a hump of material with a huge SIF and mismatch on ID (some sort of orifice). Simply because the fitting from EN 10253 wasn’t for sale, in Europe.

Edit: what’s the linesize?


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

 

[1503-44]

Why not A333 for low temp?

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

 

[XL83NL]

Not sure how that suggestion would fit what the OP is looking for. It’s not suited for -196 and it’s not an EN material.

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

 

[1503-44]

Right. 333 is limited to -42C.

I have found these suggestions for use with LNG and B31.3

"A333 WITH VARIOUS GRAD SO THIS LIMITED TO -42 C AND COULD BE SUITABLE FOR LPG BUT NOY FOR LNG ,
FOR LNG U NEED ANOTHER DIFFERENT OF MATERIALS BECAUSE CRYGONIC TEMPERTURE MAY BE -165 SO U CAN USE A304 L,316,321 AND 347 AND ALSO 9 % NICKEL STEEL OR 7 PERCENT."

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

 

[LittleInch]

There are many different grades of A333.

The most common I think is grade 6 which is-45C, but grade 8 is listed as -195C

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

 

[1503-44]

Thanks LI. You are right. I've done ammonia PL, but no LNG. I was pretty sure I'd seen that somewhere, but not sure enough to argue about it. (Only a Queen-high straight.)

Here it is,
"A333 Gr8 cryogenic pipe is a brand in American ASTM standard, which is mainly used for storage and transportation of liquefied natural gas."

https://www.sunnysteel.com/astm-a333-gr-8-low-temperature-steel-pipe.php

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

 

[XL83NL]

You’re right. I forgot about those. Also the 3.5, 7 and 9 nickel steels.
But is there any advantage over using a carbon steel alloy for low temp service (-196 and colder) over 304 or 316?

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

 

[1503-44]

Somebody must think so. Must be some +/-, although I do not know. Corrosion resistance comes to mind as does ease of fabrication. Any metallurgical comments out there?
And it may not be from the engineering perspective at all.
Initial cost, local availability, transportation cost, construction schedule and trade sanctions might all play a role there.

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

 

[1503-44]

Google Gemini has made the following suggestions

=============PROMPT=====================
Discuss advantage and disadvantages between Carbon steel and Staunless steels for use at -196°C LNG service. Mention the values of the relavent important properties of each material.

=============GEMINI RESPONSE=====================

Advantages of Carbon Steel:**

1. **Low Cost:** Carbon steel is a relatively inexpensive material compared to stainless steel, making it a cost-effective option for LNG service.

2. **High Strength:** Carbon steel has higher tensile strength and yield strength than stainless steel, making it more resistant to deformation and failure under stress.

3. **Widely Available:** Carbon steel is a common material, and it is readily available in various forms, including plates, sheets, and pipes. This wide availability makes it easy to obtain the necessary materials for LNG service.

4. **Weldability:** Carbon steel is relatively easy to weld, making it suitable for fabricating complex shapes and structures required for LNG service.

**Disadvantages of Carbon Steel:**

1. **Susceptibility to Corrosion:** Carbon steel is prone to corrosion, especially in the presence of oxygen and moisture. This can lead to the formation of rust and the deterioration of the material over time.

2. **Brittleness at Low Temperatures:** Carbon steel becomes brittle at low temperatures, making it more susceptible to cracking and failure. This can be a concern for LNG service, where temperatures can reach -196°C.

**Advantages of Stainless Steel:**

1. **Resistance to Corrosion:** Stainless steel is highly resistant to corrosion, even in the presence of oxygen and moisture. This makes it an excellent choice for LNG service, where the material is exposed to harsh conditions.

2. **Ductility at Low Temperatures:** Stainless steel maintains its ductility at low temperatures, making it less susceptible to cracking and failure. This is a critical advantage for LNG service, where the material must withstand extreme cold temperatures.

3. **High Strength:** Some grades of stainless steel have high tensile strength and yield strength, providing adequate strength for LNG service.

**Disadvantages of Stainless Steel:**

1. **High Cost:** Stainless steel is a more expensive material than carbon steel, making it a less cost-effective option.

2. **Limited Weldability:** Stainless steel is more difficult to weld than carbon steel, requiring special welding techniques and procedures. This can increase the fabrication cost and complexity.

3. **Lower Strength-to-Weight Ratio:** Stainless steel has a lower strength-to-weight ratio than carbon steel, meaning that it may require additional material or reinforcement to achieve the same level of strength.

Ultimately, the choice between carbon steel and stainless steel for LNG service depends on the specific requirements and considerations for the application. Factors such as cost, corrosion resistance, strength, and weldability must be carefully evaluated to determine the most suitable material.

Property | Carbon Steel | Stainless Steel |
| Yield Strength (ksi) | 30-60 | 20-40 |
| Tensile Strength (ksi) | 60-100 | 40-80 |
| Elongation (%) | 20-40 | 30-60 |
| Charpy V-Notch Impact Energy (ft-lb) | 15-30 | 30-60 |
| Corrosion Resistance | Low | High |

=========== END OF GEMINI RESPONSE ==================

My comment to that .. Not bad at all.
I did not think of thermal expansion.
Carbon steel may give 33% less stress between anchors plus can resist with higher allowable stresses, thereby requiring less material on both counts and probably reducing costs considerably for piping exposed to large temperature variations. A333 appears, at least initially, to be a great option, provided that gas quality is high and significant water and other corrosive compounds are absent. Typical processed LNG. I would definitely include it in the material study.

To bring this back towards the OP topic.
If you indeed have a choice between codes and one code would permit A333 or a similar material, but the other not, that just might influence your selection of which code would result in the most cost effective design.

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