Piping Class Design relationship with PED 2

[nikolastrojman]

Hi!

Is the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) relevant when designing piping classes, or it's not the case at all (i.e. the piping system that falls under the PED scope designed using a piping class needs to be PED compliant but not the piping class)?

I came across a piping class approved by NOBO from our client which is based on "PED 2014-68-EU and ASME B31.3" and now I'm trying to understand what would that mean.

 

[GD2]

PED 2014-68-EU is for stationary pressure equipment.
PED had recognized and accepted ASME B31.3 - process piping code indirectly through two supporting documents:

• ISO 15649: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries - Piping.
• EEMUA Publication No. 202: Guide to the use of ISO 15649.
  These documents assist engineering industries in facilitating the continued use of ASME B31.3 in Europe while complying with the PED.
  
  EN 13480 (PED):This directive, along with its supporting documents (ISO 15649 and EEMUA Publication No. 202), is the European equivalent of ASME B31.3 for piping systems.
  EN 13480 covers the design, fabrication, testing, and inspection of pressure piping systems, similar to ASME B31.3.
  
  While both ASME B31.3 and EN 13480 address similar areas, there can be differences in specific requirements and approaches.
  
  
  

 

[XL83NL]

PED 2014-68-EU is for stationary pressure equipment.
PED had recognized and accepted ASME B31.3 - process piping code indirectly through two supporting documents:

Id have to disagree, that's incorrect. The PED doesn't 'recognize' codes. There are harmonized standards however, like EN 13480, that fulfill and meet all PED requirements if such design code is applied in full. In those cases, no additional work is required during the conformity assessment to show compliance with the ESR's

• ISO 15649: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries - Piping.
• EEMUA Publication No. 202: Guide to the use of ISO 15649.
  These documents assist engineering industries in facilitating the continued use of ASME B31.3 in Europe while complying with the PED.

From personal experience, I would not look into ISO 15649 and EEMUA 202 very much as they're outdated and hold a lot of similarities/overlap.

For cases when B31.3 is the piping design Code, and PED must be met, B31.3 now has a new paragraph in Appendix N, N301 (which I've authored). I suggest you read that para, as it will highlight all major steps. I've written using ISO 15649 in my head, digesting that, and summarizing and updating all that's contained in there, but also in other documents and publications.

While both ASME B31.3 and EN 13480 address similar areas, there can be differences in specific requirements and approaches.

True.

Hi!

Is the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) relevant when designing piping classes, or it's not the case at all (i.e. the piping system that falls under the PED scope designed using a piping class needs to be PED compliant but not the piping class)?

I came across a piping class approved by NOBO from our client which is based on "PED 2014-68-EU and ASME B31.3" and now I'm trying to understand what would that mean.

To answer your questions;
1. No, its not written in the PED that piping classes need to meet the PED. However, piping spools that fall within PED cat I or higher need to be designed and built with a piping class that allows for conformity with the PED.

2. Some companies have NoBo approved line classes (or piping classes, whatever you wanna call them) that have shown to be compliant with the PED, specifically it's ESR's. Though that may help in some circumstances, the other way around is perfectly fine (too): making an isometric or pipe spool PED compliant when it needs to. I'd say: cross that bridge when you get there.
What we do for all our line classes is base them on B31.3, and make any pipe spool or ISO compliant with the PED if the spool under consideration is PED cat I or higher. Reason is most of our piping classes don't have to meet all ESR's. Making piping classes that meet all ESR's at forehand can be challenging, and expensive. It also depends on the NoBo; if you always have 1 and the same NoBo, you're good, but 'approvals' of 1 NoBo may not be accepted by other NoBo's.

What you'll typically find is that there will be differences in, to name a few

• allowable stresses (Table A allowable stresses may have to be reduced to meet PED, e.g. for A312-TP316).
• joint efficient
• hydrotesting requirement
• tracebility requirements (to this end, we make LISL - Line Inspection Summary Lists, that detail all MTR and welder info per ISO)
• NDE differences
• labelling; for PED cat I and higher, you'll need a nameplate on the pipe spool.

For some details, its useful to have the PED requirement leading, e.g. the hydrotest pressure, we default to 1.5 * ambient flange rating. Then al spools are tested to the same pressure, and the tester can make no mistake in e.g. testing a Cl 150 SS316 spool; its always tested to 29 bar(g). Or have a LISL for each pipe spool, because that's we want as a minimum QA requiremement.