EN10253-2 Caps Type A with no Pressure Factors

[gatossi]

Type A fittings are defined as "having the same thickness in the body as in the welded end" and in most cases have a lower pressure containing ability than the pipe of the same thickness. So far I have not had any issue while selecting Elbows, Reducers and Tees (EN10253-2 clearly shows the Pressure Factor for those)
When it comes to Caps, although they are shown in Table C.5 under the different series, there is a note stating "For some dimensions no pressure factors are listed. In these cases, the dimensions of the cap are outside the range of validity of the calculation procedures given in Annex B; the usability had to be checked for each case"

Can anybody bring some light onto this statement?
If they don't comply with Annex B Calculations, why are they listed in the Standard?
How can the usability be checked? by testing (like a proof test)?

Any help is appreciated on this.

 

[XL83NL]

Ahh, this is one of the perks of working with EN 13480 and the associated product standards for piping systems .... .
I have no idea, honestly, and the reason is I always try to stay away as much as possible from EN 13480 piping systems, even for Europe. You may try redbag.com; I think mr. Botermans has found some (other) flaws in the EN 10253-x series, on which he regularly posted on LinkedIn. Maybe he has an idea. Otherwise, send an inquiry to the working group hoping they may provide further direction.

 

[davidparker]

Type A fittings are defined as "having the same thickness in the body as in the welded end" and in most cases have a lower pressure containing ability than the pipe of the same thickness. So far I have not had any issue while selecting Elbows, Reducers and Tees (EN10253-2 clearly shows the Pressure Factor for those)
When it comes to Caps, although they are shown in Table C.5 under the different series, there is a note stating "For some dimensions no pressure factors are listed. In these cases, the dimensions of the cap are outside the range of validity of the calculation procedures given in Annex B; the usability had to be checked for each case"

Can anybody bring some light onto this statement?
If they don't comply with Annex B Calculations, why are they listed in the Standard?
How can the usability be checked? by testing (like a proof test)?

Any help is appreciated on this.

The note means that some cap dimensions fall outside the standard calculation methods in Annex B, so their pressure ratings aren't predefined. They’re still listed in the standard because they exist in common usage, but their usability needs to be checked case by case—either by engineering analysis (like FEA) or proof testing. If in doubt, consult the manufacturer or perform a pressure test to verify suitability.

 

[XL83NL]

That may indeed be an option, but why would I revert to FEA or even proof testing to determine if a standard(used) fits my purpose? Isn’t the purpose of such codes to allow for more and readily available ‘standard’ options?
To me these are just some of the issues I find with EN standards for piping.