Interpretting Old Pipe Stencils 1

[francitj]

I need help interpretting old pipe stencils. We recently uncovered a lateral laid in the 60s and found the stencil detailing the pipe specs. The stencil read as follows:

4 1/2OD 188WALL EB5 ON J1745 LOT 1033 (possbily 1088)

The stencil repeated over and over along the joint. Clearly its 4.5", 188 wt but what does the rest of the stencil mean? Any chance there is a pipe grade somewhere in there?

 

[1gibson]

Heat number for MTR?

 

[unclesyd]

Is this a metal or plastic pipe?

The pipe is used in what type system?

Are you sure of the installation date.

 

[BigInch]

pipe grade = Unknown

Consolation prize is with that diameter you'll probably not be needing too much and the unknown pipe grade clause will suffice.

Let your acquaintances be many, but your advisors one in a thousand’ ... Book of Ecclesiasticus

 

[racookpe1978]

188 wall => 0.188 wall thickness, or 3/16 thick. Originally. Now, with corrosion and erosion?

So that is (er, used to be) a 4 inch pipe, schedule 30. Material? Probably need to sample. If you need to replace any part of this pipe, upgrade to a Sch40 or Sch 80 wall thickness.

Look back in the plat's construction archives and P&ID's for a "system" or fluid spec for "EB5.

 

[francitj]

Unclesyd- It's a steel lateral off a transmission gas line. We are pretty sure about late 60s early 70s timeframe.

BigInch- For years that's what our records have indicated... unknown grade. The DOT allowable assumed grade of 24,000 has always been acceptable, but with the PHMSA bulletins released recently it looks as if regulations will require all records on the line.

racookpe1978- I will take a look to see any spec for EB5. Google has revealed nothing so far.

 

[racookpe1978]

Well, no, it (EB5 that is) would not be on Google. This would more likely not be in digital fashion at all - on any place. Look in the paper copies of the construction drawings, or the original pipe spec list.

When we built plants in that era, there would be a master list of the fluids and systems and pressures and, with each fluid or system, a list "approved" materials and pipe schedules and fitting spec's (150 lb, 300 lb, 300 lb), and joint type: BW, threaded, socket-welded, slip-on, etc, etc.

Each system - in the plant drawings and spec lists I've used to "rebuild" hundreds of pipes back into CAD from paper copies - had an abbreviation or code or letter-number combination unique to that plant or that contractor (AE firm) or region. And I think that arbitrary letter-number combination is what you are reading. But on Google? Nah. No reason to think it would ever get digitized.

 

[racookpe1978]

The other chance is that you are reading the weld material cert's for each welded joint.

 

[blacksmith37]

The 4 1/2, 188 wall; pretty much guarentees API 5L (or 5LX) line pipe. "E" likely makes it electric weld (ERW),also .188 wall would be very unlikely to be seamless. "F" for furnace weld is not likely to be made at that time.The "B" is likely 5L grade B (35,000 psi smys); standard hydro 1750 psi, optional hydro 2190 psi (per 1990 date 5L).It was very rare to make Grade A for use in USA- but the mfgrs would not let it be removed. About the only other possibility is 5LX grade X42 (or higher, X60 was pretty common), which would all be stronger than Gr B.

 

[BigInch]

Pull samples and tensile test them to make some new records to justify your current design & op pressures.

Let your acquaintances be many, but your advisors one in a thousand’ ... Book of Ecclesiasticus

 

[blacksmith37]

"E" definitely stands for ERW, per 5L 1990 ed.
So if you have any potential problem it is in the weld. Grade "B" did not require seam HT; all "X" grades did. Somebody wrote a record (with pen and paper - NOT on goggle or facebook, etc), you might find them if it is important. When I worked at Amoco we could get records back to WW 1 pipelines; I am sure BP has disposed of all these records (you may be in a similar situation).
If you can trace it to a Japanese mfgr, the HT and NDE was good, if made in USA- not good, (except LSS which would have welded it as 6.5" and reduced to 4.5").

 

[BigInch]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen a 4" diameter ERW.

Let your acquaintances be many, but your advisors one in a thousand’ ... Book of Ecclesiasticus

 

[blacksmith37]

I expect I have; or, Sumitomos' 1992 catalog shows availibilty to 1/8" (0.405 OD/ 0.068" wall) : However their "happy customer list" shows nothing below 2 3/8" (production tubing). I suspect they draw down to get the smaller sizes like < 2 3/8", although I didn't see the procedure in the catalog.Of course the emphasis of catalogs and tours is the big pipe.

 

[BigInch]

OK. But availability is kinda like flying raindeer. I still have faith that they can do it, just never seen it.

Let your acquaintances be many, but your advisors one in a thousand’ ... Book of Ecclesiasticus

 

[unclesyd]

The .188 wall belongs to 4" pipe Class LW, Light Weight or Lap Welded, or Longitudinally Welded. I believe the .188" wall is Light Weight and would equate to Schedule 20 pipe.

There is a 4 1/2" pipe with an OD of 5.0" that shows no Sch 20, only Sch 40 and 80.

I checked with my piping buddy who stated he had seen 4" ERW but had no clue as to the manufacturer or origin.

 

[francitj]

The 4" pipe this stencil came from is ERW. We could see the weld when we exposed it.

 

[blacksmith37]

API line pipe don't need no stinkin "schedule".But if they wanted to: 4.5" 0.237 =40, 4.5" 0.337 =80, 4.5" 0.674 = 120. (Of course I have the 5L in front of me). I doubt lap weld/furnace weld /bell weld pipe was made in the USA after the 50's.
If the ERW weld has a very tall narrow "hourglass" shape HAZ, it is not recrystalized; recrystalized will have a second half circle shaped HAZ coming in from the OD.
Pardon my excessive discussion; I went around with the mfgrs on the subject for years. Most other API users said "we don't care what you do with ERW, we are only going to use seamless for important service".
Big inch; I almost remember looking at 1" or 1.5" ERW exchanger tubing for ASTM A210 compliance.

 

[BigInch]

OK. I generally don't see a whole lot of anything smaller than 6" anyway. The occasional gathering line and bypass piping. I did have faith it was a possibility. Can I have a chunk?

Let your acquaintances be many, but your advisors one in a thousand’ ... Book of Ecclesiasticus

 

[Duwe6]

Send the motion for Tensiles & Bends. Also add UT ultrasound shearwave inspection of numerous 2-6 ft exposed areas of the long seams. A UT tech certified to API QUTE, or ASME Crack Sizing can tell you the percentage of fusion of your seam welds. Personally, I would scrap anything less than 85% of full fusion. And if any areas below 85% are found, either scrap & replace all the seamed stuff or UT every inch of the seams.

Alternatively, hydro it at 1.5 x the proposed PRV setting, or 2 x the working pressure. Strongly recommend hydro vs. penumatic. If pnematic is used, evacuate every foot of the line being tested, as there will be a major risk of death and/or dismemberment. You have a 'scary' line, that may be like the one in California that went BOOM.