Jeeping is checking the external corrosion coating for pinholes. Done with a hi voltage loop placed around and passed down the pipe. The electrical field is measured and monitored by the "holiday" detector. The voltage field between pipe and loop changes when any pinholes are near the loop causing an alarm on the detector to trigger.
I believe they are talking about some sort of electrical "holiday" test (that is sometimes done of the surface of various structures coated with dielectric coatings, to find pinholes or other discontinuities). Some instruments for some tests let out a high pitched squeal not unlike a small bird, perhaps hence the term? You should probably ask for clarification as there are different procedures and instruments for performing such testing (depending on coating thickness, applications, referenced specifcation(s) etc.)
My comment would be that such work should be specified as to method including the instrumentation used, records kept etc.
Maybe 'Jeep' is the name of a company which makes such instruments. Who knows?
Anyway, I prefer not to use colloquial terms especially those which may be misinterpreted. Plain, explicit language is best. I have complained before about engineering slang. Sometimes it serves a real purpose in verbal discussions, but it can be dangerous.
BUT, Thanks again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BigInch and rconner are correct. "Jeeping" is a term for detecting "holidays", or places where the pipe is not coated/protected due to a hole/rip in the wrap/jacketing.
These are the industry terms that we use here. I am sure other places have their own.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
In project-design specifications, I use the phrase "a suitable holiday detector will be used to verify that both the factory coating is intact and that the joints are properly taped/sleeved. Holidays will be repaired and re-tested.". It is not free of jargon, but it also doesn't leave much room for screwing up.
Oh-Oh. You just had to go ahead and hit my rant button.
Unless you are the contractor, contracts and specifications must always use the word "shall" in place of "will". "Shall" is "compelling", "will" invokes only "intent".
Additionally, "/" is not a substitute for "or" and don't be tempted to use "and/or", as that is not a word either, nor would it specify anything, if it was a word, as it would be completely redundant. To allow for equal possibilities of two or more conditions at the contractor's option, "or" is correct. To specify several conditions, all of which shall apply without anyone's option, use the form, "xxx, xxx, xxx and xxx".
BigInch,
I've written specifications on several dozen big projects. I've written bid packages on many of them. I absolutely don't adhere to the pedantic "shall" vs. "will" differentiation and have never had a single problem with someone claiming that "will" "invokes only intent" (as oposed to what?, the whole design document is invoking my intent, which is the required performance). People don't see the difference (except that many of us find the whole "shall" thing archaic and pompus), lawyers see a difference--I have always contended that a well-managed project should never end up with lawyers involved on the back end. I've never had to sue a contractor nor have I ever been sued as a project manager so I've never had a court have to decide on my use of will vs. shall.
I use "taped/sleeved" because in another place I specify that "the contractor will provide material to cover the bare metal at weld joints and at holiday's in the manufactured-coating. Either tape-and-primer or shrink-sleeves are acceptable and the choice will be left to the contractor's preferences". Tape is cheeper to purchase, sleeves go on faster, tape is more readily available, and sleeves require less expertise to install properly. I've found the protection to be so close to the same that I don't care which they use.
Will/Shall. I had a lawyer explain to me that it really doesn't matter, because if one person is an expert, and you are relying on the expert, the expert ought to know better, even if it is not spelled out in the contract. In any case, if the defense comes down to shall/will, it's a weak case and you will be settling most likely.
And/Or. Sometimes I want to insulate my pipe only. Sometimes I want to heat trace my pipe only. Sometimes I can live with either insulation or heat tracing. Someties I need both insulation and heat tracing. If all of the above are possible, then I say "insulate and/or heat trace, as required".
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Yup. Our sweet fuel gas line, IA, and the like are usually not insulated. The piping is low temp though.
If the dew point is low enough, it should be good to go.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I think its best not to have your specs depend on other's opinions, experts or otherwise. Specs should describe the minimum level of acceptability.
Its a common misconception that specifications should describe the methods used to arrive at an acceptable result rather than the standard of acceptability that will be used to measure the results of the work. They should never specify a particular method the contractor can or, in anybody's opinion, should be used to acheive the specified results. If you do specify a construction method, you are actually working for the contractor and you are really writing a "constructin method statement", not a specification. Let the contractor decide on the methods to be used. He supposedly has the knowledge and equipment to construct according to the methods within within his relm of experience in which he is competant and probably planned to use when he made his winning bid.
Actually, its also much better not to allow any choices in a specification at all. Why do that? What's the purpose of a specification anyway? If your specification is adequate, it shouldn't matter which method is used to produce the results you require. Furthermore, it allows the contractor to do this in the most competive manner he can. For example, when I specify an offshore pipeline project, I do not attempt to specify that the pipeline must be laid using a J-lay rig, or from a standard S-lay barge, or welded up onshore and floated away to be sunk in the final position, nor do I really care (from a specification perspective). I only want that the pipeline be finally laid within a certain right-of-way on the ocean floor, from A to B and that it doesn't overstress the pipe in the process. Actually, I don't care if he sends divers down one-by-one to weld the pipe up in a hyperbaric chamber. Keeping it simple here, basically I give them the drawings showing the R-O-W and a spec telling them that the pipe must not be overstressed at any time during the laying, nor in its final position. Let the contractor use his S-lay barge, if he can or develop some other construction method, if he wants to. If you specify that a particular method be used, you assume 100% of the risk of non-performance. I'm sure you don't have to be told who's pocket repairs will be paid from, if the final result using your specified methods, are not within the acceptable results of your specification. Any smart contractor knows this and happily accepts specifications that tell him exactly and precisely how he must go about building something. That's the absolute best CYA 100% coverage insurance policy. Specify the minimum acceptable results and let the contractor take the risk of using any methods he believes will permit him to produce the results to the minimum (specified) acceptable level at a competive cost.
Today when using English will=shall=will, but once upon a time as all good stories start out, shall used to infer a stronger sense than will and was used as a directive. Today many still use shall as a directive as they still consider it a stronger form - but will can be interchanged without changing the intent.
Thanks for your comment, however in America, will does not equal shall. Quotated from, "The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English." 1996.
... "However, you can use will with a subject in the first person and shall with a subject in the second or third person to express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Thus I will leave tomorrow indicates that the speaker is determined to leave. You shall leave tomorrow has the ring of a command. The sentence You shall have your money expresses a promise (“I will see that you get your money”), whereas You will have your money makes a simple prediction.
In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation, such as Applicants shall provide a proof of residence,..."
Therefore, think of it like this, if you prefer that your specifications make predictions rather than comprise commands, use "will", ie. "it will rain tomorrow". You won't hear, "It shall rain tomorrow" on CNN. In fact I don't think you will hear the word "shall" on CNN used at all.
BigInch
Thanks for the link and as always the differences between usage is subtle and sometimes interesting, however, I still consider will to be as strong or explicit as shall.
Just because shall is sometimes used in legal work doesn't make it any more specific or give any other meaning than will. For instance - if you were to write a specification that said- you will complete the contract by the 16th otherwise penalties will be imposed, is as binding and specific as - you shall complete the contract .... etc etc.
Legal speak is legal speak and in many cases used to confuse - or to present a superior position to the average layman. Like all legal jargon - where is always a simple and clear word /s to describe the legal jargon.
Therefore I shall (or should that be will) agree to disagree with you.
No problem, but I think you mean to say you agree to disagree with me and American Heritage. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but IMO you should think twice about disagreeing with an authority on the subject, unless you also are an authority on the subject. Since I myself am not an authority on the subject, and you don't work for me, I shall allow you to do as you wish
Just as a matter of curiosity, do you write contracts and specifications in English over there in Thailand? Does the English version have precedence over the Thai translation? If not, its not what you say in English is not likely to matter one way or another anyway. In the US, Saudi, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Spain, Venezuela, Germany and France, the local translations (and local dilects) take total precedence over foreign language contracts and American lawyers, appointed arbitrators and judges are not so forgiving when it comes to the misuse of words, hence they have a language all their own. It behoves one to know the local language being used, even if its legal-speak in court.
