pig launcher 5

[hkjoe]

we build a tank farm (API 650)with on- and off shore pipeline with pig launcher / receiver. Code for CH-transportation systems is 31.4 and it is written that 31.4 cannot be used for pressure vessels (chapter I, 400.1.2b. My understanding is a pig launcher is a pressure vessel (manufacturing acc. to ASME VIII-I but what about the design and materials (ASME VIII / II)? I want avoid of mixing up standards. Our pig launcher(shell) is made of X42.
Thanks

 

[BigInch]

Shiv's got it right as far as I'm concerned.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -Albert Einstein

 

[hkjoe]

I would say the DNV “Standard” is more a guideline or might be a local standard only.
It is not clear that this is an internationally recognised standard because if you see an official EN, you always find a foreword of CEN (European Committee of Standardization) similar in ASME codes. However the problem is the pig launcher and my interpretation is:
The quick opening/closure shall be in accordance to ASME VIII. The rest could be designed acc. to B 31.4 (our case, we have A1 – aviation fuel). If you have a mix of standards you have to make sure that design – operation – and test data in compliance with the strictest code. Of course it will have cost impacts, if you design and manufacture the whole pig launcher acc. ASMW VIII. So, it’s a question of interpretation and what the client / operator really want. It always shall be the cheapest solution but is this always the best solution?
Joerg

 

[SJones]

DNV OS-F101 is an industry standard as opposed to an international standard (ISO/IEC/IMO), a regional standard (EN), or a national standard ( such as BS, DIN, ANSI etc). Since it is an industry standard that puts it on the same playing field as API, for example. How it is used is, of course, a matter between the pipeline owner and any regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the pipeline. I do know that DNV is big in Australia if you'll excuse the terminology.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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

 

[hkjoe]

Steve, thanks for your answer and indeed DNV is not recognised here (Asia-Pacific region)I prefer the "well known" standards like ASME, API, ANSI, JIS or EN standards.
All these standards issued by DNV, TUV, ABS, etc. are creating sometimes more confusion instead to be helpful.

 

[BigInch]

DNV is a private organization, of which one of their divisions is engaged in hazard evaluations and sufficiency ratings. Their standards simply define their requirements. Some owners of facilities ask for design to DNV standards for insurance purposes.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -Albert Einstein

 

[c1defence]

We're now diverging from the original query, and this could be a new topic. Codes and standards.
My observation is that it is the country law/regulation that determines which code or standard to be followed.
In US it is really Code of Federal regulations, which are similar to ASME. In other western countries, ISO/EN maybe the regulatory(?) codes usually, replacing BS/DIN,etc.
In Saudi Arabia there is HCIS(?). Norway offshore may well use DNV and Norsok.
[The NORSOK standards are developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry as a part of the NORSOK initiative and are jointly issued by OLF (The Norwegian Oil Industry Association) and TBL (Federation of Norwegian Engineering Industries). NORSOK standards are administered by NTS (Norwegian Technology Standards Institution).]
Where countries do no have any national codes, or perhaps even a regulatory code, it may be stated that the system shall be in accordance with an approved recognised standard. The oil companies/operators then specify their preferred standard.
In Nigeria, XOM use ASME for example.
In Qatar, QP joint venture with Shell/CoP specify DNV. Shell (the Netherlands) still specify ASME VIII for the trap door. There are probably Euro standards equivalent to ASME VIII, but this is one of the more internationally known codes.
And the Russians have GOST, VSN, SN and SNIP!

 

[doct9960]

hkjoe (Petroleum) 30 Jan 08 21:05
we build a tank farm (API 650)with on- and off shore pipeline with pig launcher / receiver. Code for CH-transportation systems is 31.4 and it is written that 31.4 cannot be used for pressure vessels (chapter I, 400.1.2b. My understanding is a pig launcher is a pressure vessel (manufacturing acc. to ASME VIII-I but what about the design and materials (ASME VIII / II)? I want avoid of mixing up standards. Our pig launcher(shell) is made of X42.

hkjoe,
A pig launcher is basically a pipeline component. It can be designed to ASME B31.4 or to ASME Section VIII, Division 1.

If you want to use X42 for the shell, it should be designed in accordance to ASME B31.4. But if your Client wants the pig launcher designed and manufactured in accordance to ASME VIII-1, then the material should be among those covered in ASME Section II. (Note that API 5L Grade X42 is not one of them.) If the pig launcher meets all the requirements of ASME VIII-1, it MAY be stamped with the Code U Symbol. If stamped with a Code U Symbol, then it is mandatory to provide PSV's that are also stamped (Code UV).
The bottomline is that you will end up with an expensive piece of pipeline component if you design it to ASME VIII-1.

 

[doct9960]

hkhoe,

I suggest you clarify everything with your client. Your client has the final say on this matter. They are the ones paying for that pig launcher, and if your client is also the owner, then they are also the ones responsible for that pig launcher.

 

[vesselfab]

we are building some right now to go offshore in Brazil

All is considered pipe except quick opening closure is ASME Design with Keyed Interlock to prevent opening while under pressure.

 

[engrom]

Seems this is a common confusion, simply because the name plate on the end closure mentions code ASME VIII.
Only Pig trap enclosures are designed to ASME VIII.
Barrel shall comply with pipeline design code B31.4/B31.8

http://igs.nigc.ir/igs/STANDARD/BANK-CD/CD-PIG/STANDARDS/SHELL-31402132.pdf

http://igs.nigc.ir/igs/STANDARD/BANK-CD/CD-PIG/STANDARDS/SHELL-31401013.pdf

 

[SJones]

Quoting 15 year old Shell standards that the Iranians should not be putting on the web is probably not the best way of enforcing a point.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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

 

[hkjoe]

Thanks guys for the last info (sorry was abroad for a time) exactly here is the point: As I explained to the client ASMME II (material, X 42 not covered, etc.) U-stamp when designed acc. to ASME VIII, etc. - no clue. what you said: the barrel 31.4 and only the pig launcher closure (door) acc to ASME VIII guess it's the best way. Thanks!

 

[BillBirch]

Although I have seen designs both ways, the most common is to use the pipeline code. The pressure vessel code is a pain in the neck when used to size the minor barrel wall thickness, as ASME VIII reequires thicker walls than the pipeline codes, creating a mismatch.

 

[maddocks]

Currently, under Alberta (Canadian code), we are required to construct the receiver/sender under the applicable pipeline code CSA Z662. However, the closure is expected to be ASME certified with a CRN registration #. hkjoe - you're on the right track.