ISO/DIS 15848-1 & -2 std's for Fugitive Emissions testing 1

[NGiLuzzu]

Dear All,
the standards in object have been recently promoted from the "Committee Draft" (CD) to the "Draft International Standard" (DIS) status and, although still under development and at an inquiry stage ("40.60 - Voting summary dispatched"), they are now available for public purchase (with a price of 64 CHF each).

See also Thread408-100721 and the relevant ISO web-pages:

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=29242&scopelist=PROGRAMME

and

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=31170&scopelist=PROGRAMME

Has anybody tried to set up a test according to these documents already? Or even read them? (Customer specifications start mentioning them as a reference...)
As far as I remember, at the time of Committee Drafts, type testing (described in Part -1) was very severe and difficult to put into industrial practice, while production test (described in Part -2) was very simple: is that still the same?

And finally, do you think it is worth buying the standard drafts? Will this long work (started in 1997, at least) reach a world-wide accepted result?

Many thanks in advance, 'NGL

 

[RichDavis]

Anegri,

I am only aware of one location where the testing equipment is currently set up to conduct ISO 15848-1. Look up

http://www.cetim.fr

The location is Nantes, France.
I gather you are located in Europe, so this may work for you.

 

[NGiLuzzu]

RichDavis,
thank you very much for the information.

Yes, I'm located in Europe (Northern Italy); but in the mean time we are going to set up the test at our own facility... even if times (more then a working month) and costs (some tens of thousands Euros) needed to perform 20,000 mechanical and 2 thermal cycles on a 10" or 12" class 600 valve are very high!!
May be we'll get a big order, able to cover some of those costs...

Thanks again, 'NGL

 

[SJones]

Many things can change from the DIS version to publication. Indeed, if the feedback is substantially negative, it may not even manage to become a standard at all

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/

 

[NGiLuzzu]

SJones,
I agree with you! I also heard about some Manufactueres who left the ISO Working Group complaining about the type test practical and economical feasibility (and I think they were right)...

But, unluckily, some Customers put the above mentioned tests into their Project Specifications as mandatory requirements (even if the ISO itself says that the DIS documents can not be used as international standards...). We also tried to persuade the Customers with this note and to discourage them with an high extra-cost... but without success, at this moment.

Thanks and regards, 'NGL

 

[GB67]

Hi to all.

I've already followed a qualification for of valves according to this ISO draft.

Nothing really new.
Now TUV to qualifiy valves according to TA-Luft already require also to follow the procedure specified in this ISO draft.

I followed this qualification last year for TYPE testing.
The valves passed the tests.

I thint that this ISO draft now is already a "industry" standard. For example Solvay alreade require it.

I don't see any technical problem to qualify a good valve with sealing system suitable for low emissions.

On german and italian maket they are a lot of producer that already have this qualification.

The total cost to qualify a valve range was around 35.000 Euro.

 

[NGiLuzzu]

GB67,
may I ask you what valve size was tested?
Control or on-off valves?
How many mechanical and thermal cycles?
What temperatures range and means to warm up and/or cool down the valves?

We are going to type test a 12"/600 quarter turn valve, with 20,000 complete mechanical cycles (to cover both control and on-off applications) and at least 2 thermal cyles between room temperature and +200°C; maybe we'll repeat the same test between -46°C and room temperature, in order to extend the qualification to low temperature services...

We are also designing a test on the same valve size to qualify our PTFE packing for chlorine service, considering the requirements of ISO 15848-1 for on-off valves (at least 500 mechanical cycles), in accordance to TA-Luft (VDI 2440) and TUV indications.

I don't know if both testing projects will be realized and when, but now it seems sure the type tests will be peformed.

Many thanks in advance, 'NGL

 

[GB67]

The valve size tested was DN 8" ANSI 600
It was for on - off service

Temperature range: -10 / + 200°C

Cycles number: 1500

According to ISO 15848 it's no sense to qualify a big valve because you will leave unqualified the lower sizes.

Regards.

 

[NGiLuzzu]

GB67,
I guess you've qualified on-off valves only... then, unless you've got different agreements with the valve Purchaser, you should have performed two tests, with at least 2 thermal cycles between -46°C (or -10°C) and room temperature + 2 thermal cycles between room temperature and +200°C (according to ISO/DIS 15848-1, § 5.4, page 13): am I right?

Always according to the reference standard, clause 5 of § 7, the above mentioned 12"/600 should qualify our valves from 8" to 44" in class 150, from 8" to 32" in class 300 and from 6" to 24" in class 600.
We're also thinking about a 20"/600 to qualify larger valves (up to 30"/600 and 68"/150 half rating)...

As you can imagine, our business is (now) oriented towards higher sizes; in any case, once we have performed the planned type testing, repeating it (if necessary) on a smaller valve won't be a problem ;-)

Bye, 'NGL

 

[gasketguru]

We have been involved in valve emissions testing for many years with our customers. I would agree with Rich that CETIM are a good source of testing expertise.

I do note that I have not seen too much in the way of published test data as yet, to prove just how achieveable the ISO standard actually is at each tightness and endurance level.

However,we have recently worked with one of our customers to achieve CC2 with tightness class B on a control valve, with quite a high temperature. For block valves then again a reasonable result should easily be possible with care in set-up.

I have recently seen customers / constructors request test data based upon this standard but with "extensions" and modifications to the requirements (everyone is suddenly an expert...) and that rather ruins the point of the standard in the first place.

Another thought - you mention chlorine valves - remember that with fugitive emissions we are looking at VOC's (hydrocarbons) - I don't know whether the Eurochlor folks have any similar requirements in terms of leak measurement. Also, most refinery valves are below 3" N.B., but the larger valves are statistically more likely to be found leaking - think of stem tapering effects during thermal cycling etc. (I have done quite a lot of LDAR work over the years as well...) Thus, choose your sizes carefully.

Hope this helps

 

[GB67]

@anegri.

For temperature range this the old question.

What is RT? Now it's a common consensus that RT is not 20°C but a range between -10°C and +40°C
This becasue if you take RT = 20°C then you cannot use WCB / A105 for +19°C (despite to ANSI B 16.34 in EU you cannot use WCB under RT because PED regulation) and this is simply absurd.

To qualify the valve for T under -10°C you cannot use a valve in WCB of course and you must perform a second test.

 

[NGiLuzzu]

gasketguru,
I still have to check Eurochlor standards, thanks for the reminder ;-)
In any case, the requirement for TA-Luft testing comes directly from German market (Bayer, BASF, etc...).


GB67,
if I have, for instance, valves in LCC or LCB, able to work between -46°C and +200°C, why must I perform two tests (one between -46°C and RT and one between RT and +200°C)?
Why I cannot perform one test only between -46°C and +200°C?
(The standard seems very clear about that: see ISO/DIS 15848-1, § 5.4...)


Thanks and regards, 'NGL