Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NominaI pipe
waII thickness
(Min.) = 1.09 but
not Iess
than 0.12 in.
(3.0 mm)
Approx. 0.06 in.
(2.0 mm)
before weIding
Minimum
fIat - 0.75
See 7.7.1
FIGURE 1. Socketweld fittings are available in a
wide range of sizes
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 44 1/24/07 2:31:23 PM
product was a spongy molten mass
called a bloom, a term derived from
the red glow of the molten metal,
which is likewise how the process
gets its name. The slag and impuri-
ties were then mechanically removed
from the molten mass by twisting and
hammering, which is where the term
wrought originates.
Today forged and wrought are al-
most synonymous. ASTM A234, Stan-
dard Specification for Piping Fittings
of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy
Steel for Moderate and High Tem-
perature Service states in Para 4.1
and in Para 5.1 that wrought fittings
made under A234 are actually manu-
factured or fabricated from material
pre-formed by one of the methods
listed previously, which includes forg-
ing. In ASTM A961, Standard Specifi-
cation for Common Requirements for
Steel Flanges, Forged Fittings, Valves
and Parts for Piping Applications, the
definition for the term Forged is, the
product of a substantially compres-
sive hot or cold plastic working op-
eration that consolidates the material
and produces the required shape. The
plastic working must be performed by
a forging machine, such as a hammer,
press, or ring rolling machine, and
must deform the material to produce
a wrought structure throughout the
material cross section.
The difference, therefore, between
forged and wrought fittings is that
forged fittings, simply put, are manu-
factured from bar, which while in its
plastic state is formed into a fitting
with the use of a hammer, press or
rolling machine. Wrought fittings, on
the other hand, are manufactured
from killed steel, forgings, bars, plates
and seamless or fusion welded tubu-
lar products that are shaped by ham-
mering, pressing, piercing, extruding,
upsetting, rolling, bending, fusion
welding, machining, or by a combina-
tion of two or more of these operations.
In simpler terms wrought signifies
worked. There are exceptions in the
manufacture of both, but that is the
general difference.*
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com FeBrUarY 2007 45
PLASTIC-LINED PIPE
I
n the main body of this article, we have touched on just some of
the key points related to metal pipe and fittings, while not consider-
ing plastic lined pipe systems and nonmetallic piping. Nonmetallic
piping merits a discussion on its own, and should not be relegated
to a paragraph or two here. On the other hand, since plastic lined
pipe is steel pipe with a liner, and is so widely used in the process
industries, it is worthwhile to present the relevant basics here.
When first introduced, plastic lined pipe filled a large fluid-han-
dling gap in industry, but brought with it some technical issues.
In particular, when various manufacturers began producing lined
pipe and fittings, industry standards for them did not exist. Conse-
quently, there were no standard fitting dimensions, and the avail-
ability of size and type of fittings would vary from one company to
another (as they still do, to a much lesser degree). Due to the auton-
omous nature of lined pipe manufacturing during its initial stages,
the piping designer for a process plant would have to know early
in the design process which manufacturer he or she were going to
use. Particularly in fitting-makeup situations, in which a 90-deg
elbow might be bolted to a tee, which in turn might br bolted to
another 90-deg elbow it was important to know in advance what
those makeup dimensions were going to be, and thus the identity
of the fitting manufacturer.
While the lack of industry standard dimensions was a design
problem, other operational type problems existed as well. Some of
the fluid services for which these lined pipe systems were specified
for (and still are) would normally be expected to operate under a
positive pressure, but at times would phase into a negative pres-
sure. The liners in the early systems were not necessarily vacuum-
rated, and consequently would collapse at times under the negative
internal pressure, plugging the pipeline.
There was an added problem when gaskets were thrown into
the mix. Gaskets were not normally required unless frequent dis-
mantling was planned; even so, many firms, both engineering and
manufacturers, felt more secure in specifying gaskets at every joint.
When required, the gasket of choice, in many cases, was an en-
velope type gasket made of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) with an
inner core of various filler material, such as EPDM. These gaskets
had a tendency to creep under required bolt-torque pressure at
ambient conditions. From the time at which a system was installed
to the time it was ready to hydrotest, the gaskets would, on many
occasion, creep, or relax to the point of reducing the compressive
bolt load of the joint enough to where it would not stand up to the
hydrotest pressure. Quite often, leaks would become apparent dur-
ing the fill cycle prior to testing.
Other problems that still exist are those of permeation with regard to
PTFE liner material, as well as that of internal and external triboelectric
charge generation and accumulation (static electricity). But, due to the
diligent efforts of the lined pipe and gasket industries, these types of
problems have either been largely eliminated or controlled.
Even so, the designer employing lined pipe should keep the poten-
tial for static-electricity problems in mind. If electrical charge gen-
eration is allowed to continually dissipate to ground, then there is
no charge buildup and no problem. That is what occurs with steel
pipe in contact with a flowing fluid: charge generation has a path to
ground, and does not have an opportunity to build up. With regard
to thermoplastic lined pipe, there are two issues to be considered:
external charge accumulation and internal charge accumulation. Ex-
perience and expertise are needed in order to analyze a particular
situation. A subsequent installment of this series will provide basic
information that will at least allow you to be familiar with the subject,
and help you to understand the issues.
Fitting dimensions for lined pipe have been standardized through
ASTM F1545 in referencing ASME B16.1 (cast iron fittings), B16.5
(steel fittings) and B16.42 (ductile iron fittings). Note 3 under Sub-
Para. 4.2.4 of ASTM F1545 states, Center-to-face dimensions
include the plastic lining, which means that the dimensions given
in the referenced ASME standards are to the bare metal face of the
fittings. However, when lined fittings are manufactured, the metal
casting is modified to accommodate the liner thickness being in-
cluded in that same specified center-to-face dimension.
With regard to vacuum rating, liner specifications have been
greatly improved, but it is prudent to check the vacuum ratings of
available pipe and fittings with each manufacturer under consid-
eration. This rating is likely to vary from manufacturer to manu-
facturer depending on diameter, fitting, liner type, pressure and
temperature. Gasket materials such as PTFE/Silicate composite or
100% expanded PTFE, have been developed to reduce the gasket
creep rate in a gasket material.
Permeation issues with PTFE liners (these issues also arise, to a
lesser extent, with other liner material) have been accommodated
more than resolved with the use of vents in the steel pipe casing, the
application of vent components at the flange joint, and increased
liner thickness.
Standard sizes of plastic lined pipe and fittings range from NPS
1 in. through 12 in. And at least one lined-pipe manufacturer, also
manufactures larger-diameter pipe and fittings: from NPS 14 in.
through 24 in., and when requested can manufacture spools to
144 in. diameter.
*A point concerning the ASTM specifications is
worth noting. In referring to ASTM A961 above,
I am quoting from what ASTM refers to as a
General Requirement Specification. Such a spec-
ification is one that covers requirements typical
for multiple individual Product Specifications. In
this case, the individual Product Specifications
covered by A961 are A105, A181, A182, A360,
A694, A707, A727 and A836.
The reason I point this out is that many de-
signers and engineers are not aware that when
reviewing an A105 or any of the other ASTM
individual Product Specifications you may need
to include the associated General Requirement
Specification in that review. Reference to a Gen-
eral Requirement Specification can be found in
the respective Product Specification.
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 45 1/24/07 2:32:10 PM
Forged steel and alloy steel sock-
etweld (Figure 1) and threaded fit-
tings, under ASME B16.11, are avail-
able in sizes NPS 1/8 in. through 4 in.
Forged socketweld fittings are avail-
able in pressure rating Classes 3000,
6000 and 9000. Forged threaded fit-
tings are available in pressure rating
Classes 2000, 3000 and 6000.
Misapplication of the pressure rat-
ing in these forged socketweld and
threaded fittings is not infrequent;
the person specifying components on
many cases does not fully understand
the relationship between the pressure
Class of these fittings and the pipe
they are to be used with.
In ASME B16.11 is a table that as-
sociates, as a recommendation, fitting
pressure Class with pipe wall thick-
ness, as follows:
TABLE 1. CORRELATION OF
PIPE WALL THICKNESS
& PRESSURE RATING
Pipe wall
thickness.
Threaded Socket-
weld
80 or XS 2000 3000
160 3000 6000
XXS 6000 9000
The ASME recommendation is
based on matching the I.D. of the
barrel of the fitting with the I.D. of
the pipe. The shoulder of the fitting
(the area of the fitting against which
the end of the pipe butts), whether
socketweld, as shown in Fig. 1, or
threaded, is approximately the same
width as the specified mating pipe
wall thickness, with allowance for
fabrication tolerances. As an exam-
ple, referring to Table 1, if you had a
specified pipe wall thickness of Sch.
160 the matching threaded forged
fitting would be a Class 3000, for
socketweld it would be a Class 6000.
The fitting pressure class is selected
based on the pipe wall thickness.
Referring to Fig. 1, one can readily
see that by not matching the fitting
class to the pipe wall thickness it
will create either a recessed area or
a protruding area the length of the
barrel of the fitting, depending on
which side you error on. For forged
reinforced branch fittings refer to
MSS Standard SP-97 Integrally
Reinforced Forged Branch Outlet
Fittings - Socket Welding, Threaded
and Buttwelding Ends.
Wrought fittings
Wrought steel butt-weld fittings
under ASME B16.9 (standard-radius
1.5D elbows and other fittings) are
available in sizes in. through 48 in.
Wrought steel butt-weld fittings under
B16.28 (short-radius 1D elbows), are
available in sizes in. through 24 in.
There is no pressure/temperature rat-
ing classification for these fittings. In
lieu of fitting pressure classifications,
both B16.9 and B16.28 require that
the fitting material be the same as or
comparable to the pipe material speci-
fication and wall thickness. Under
ASME B16.9, given the same material
composition, the fittings will have the
same allowable pressure/temperature
as the pipe. ASME requires that the
fittings under B16.28, short radius el-
bows, be strength-rated at 80% of the
value calculated for straight seamless
pipe of the same material and wall
thickness.
These fittings can be manufactured
from seamless or welded pipe or tub-
ing, plate or forgings. Laterals, because
of the elongated opening cut from the
run pipe section are strength-rated
at 40% of the strength calculated for
Feature Report
46 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com FeBrUarY 2007
HYGIENIC PIPING
M
ajor characteristics of piping for the pharmaceutical and
semiconductor industries are the requirements for high-
purity, or hygienic, fluid services. These requirements, as
dictated by current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) and
defined and quantified by the International Soc. of Pharmaceutical
Engineers (ISPE) and by ASME Bio Processing Equipment (ASME-
BPE), are stringent with regard to the manufacture, documentation,
fabrication, installation, qualification, validation and quality con-
trol of hygienic piping systems and components.
The hours that the engineer or designer requires in generating,
maintaining and controlling the added documentation required for
hygienic fabrication and installation addds up to 30% to 40% of
the overall cost of fabrication and installation. A subsequent in-
stallment in this series will cover in more detail the specific require-
ments of hygienic fabrication, and, accordingly, where that added
cost comes from.
Hygienic is a term defined in ASME-BPE as: of or pertaining to
equipment and piping systems that by design, materials of con-
struction, and operation provide for the maintenance of cleanliness
so that products produced by these systems will not adversely af-
fect animal or human health.
While system components such as tube, fittings, valves, as well
as the hygienic aspects of the design itself, can apply to the semi-
conductor industry, the term hygienic itself does not; it instead
pertains strictly to the health aspects of a clean and cleanable sys-
tem for pharmaceuticals manufacture. The semiconductor industry
requires a high, or in some cases higher, degree of cleanliness and
cleanability than do the hygienic systems in the pharmaceutical in-
dustry, for altogether different reasons. A term that can more ap-
propriately be interchanged between these two industries is high-
purity; this implies a high degree of cleanliness and cleanability
without being implicitly connected with one industry or the other.
For what is referred to as product contact material, the absence
of surface roughness, minimal dead-legs and an easily cleanable
system are all imperative. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry
had to make a departure from the 3-A standards (created for the
food and dairy industries) of which it had availed itself early on, in
order to develop a set of guidelines and standards that better suit its
industry. Enter ASME-BPE, which has taken on the task of providing
a forum for engineers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, component
and equipment manufacturers, and inspectors in an effort to develop
consensus standards for the industry where none existed before.
Hygienic piping was, up until just recently, referred to as sani-
tary piping. Because this term has been so closely associated with
the plumbing industry and with sanitary drain piping, it is felt by
the pharmaceutical industry that the change in terminology to hy-
gienic is more appropriate.
In both the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries, the
need for crevicefree, drainable systems is a necessity. This trans-
lates into weld joint quality, mechanical joint design requirements,
interior pipe surface roughness limits, system drainability and
dead-leg limitations.
There are two basic types of fitting joints in hygienic piping:
welded and clamp. The welded fittings, unlike standard buttweld
pipe fittings, have an added tangent length to accommodate the
orbital welding machine. The orbital welding machine allows the
welding operator to make consistent high-quality autogenous
welds (welds made without filler metal). Fusion is made between
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 46 1/24/07 2:32:47 PM
straight seamless pipe of the same
material and wall thickness. If a full
strength lateral is required, either the
wall thickness of the lateral itself can
be increased or a reinforcement pad
can be added at the branch to com-
pensate for the loss of material at the
branch opening.
Wrought copper solder joint fittings,
under ASTM B88 and ASME B16.22,
are available in sizes in. through 6
in. These fittings can be brazed as
well as soldered.
The pressure/temperature rating
for copper fittings are based on the
type of solder or brazing material and
the tubing size. The rating will vary
too, depending on whether the fitting
is a standard fitting or a DWV (Drain,
Waste, Vent) fitting, which has a re-
duced pressure rating.
As an example, using alloy Sn50,
50-50 Tin-Lead Solder, at 100F, fit-
tings in. through 1 in. have a pres-
sure rating of 200 psig, and fittings
1 in. through 2 in. have a pressure
rating of 175 psig. DWV fittings 1 in.
through 2 in. have a pressure rating
of 95 psig.
Using alloy HB, which is a Tin-Anti-
mony-Silver-Copper-Nickel (Sn-Sb-Ag-
Cu-Ni) solder, having 0.10% maximum
lead (Pb) content, at 100F, fittings
in. through 1 in. have a pressure rat-
ing of 1,035 psig and fittings 1 in.
through 2 in. have a pressure rating of
805 psig. DWV fittings 1 in. through
2 in. would have a pressure rating of
370 psig.
It can be seen that, within a given
type of fitting, there is a significant
difference in the pressure ratings of
soldered joints, depending on the type
of filler metal composition. Much of
the difference is in the temperature at
which the solder or brazing filler metal
fully melts. This is referred to as its liq-
uidus state. The temperature at which
the filler starts to melt is referred to as
its solidus temperature. The higher the
liquidus temperature, the higher the
pressure rating of the joint.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Earl Lamson, senior
Project Manager with Eli Lilly and
Co., for taking time out of a busy
schedule to read through the draft of
this article. He obliged me by review-
ing this article with the same skill, in-
telligence and insight he brings to ev-
erything he does. His comments kept
me concise and on target.
Edited by Nicholas P. Chopey
Recommended Reading
1. Cox, John, Avoid Leakage in Pipe Systems,
Chem. Eng., January 2006, pp. 4043.
2. Sahoo, Trinath, Gaskets: The Weakest Link,
Chem. Eng., June 2005, pp. 3840.
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com FeBrUarY 2007 47
Author
W. M. (Bill) Huitt has been
involved in industrial pip-
ing design, engineering and
construction since 1965. Posi-
tions have included design en-
gineer, piping design instruc-
tor, project engineer, project
supervisor, piping depart-
ment supervisor, engineering
manager and president of W.
M. Huitt Co. a piping con-
sulting firm founded in 1987.
His experience covers both the engineering and
construction fields and crosses industrial lines
to include petroleum refining, chemical, petro-
chemical, pharmaceutical, pulp & paper, nuclear
power, and coal gasification. He has written nu-
merous specifications including engineering and
construction guidelines to ensure that design
and construction comply with code requirements,
Owner expectations and good design practices.
Bill is a member of ISPE (International Society
of Pharmaceutical Engineers), CSI (Construction
Specifications Institute) and ASME (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers). He is a con-
tributor to ASME-BPE and sets on two corporate
specification review boards. He can be reached
at: W. M. Huitt Co., P O Box 31154, St. Louis, MO
63131-0154, (314)966-8919
HYGIENIC PIPING
the parent metals of the two components being
welded by means of tungsten inert gas welding. Pipe
welding will be covered in more detail in an upcom-
ing installment.
The photograph shows an example of an orbital,
or automatic, welding machine mounted on its work-
piece. In this example, the piece happens to be a
90-deg elbow being welded to a cross. One can see
in this example why the additional straight tangent
section of automatic weld fittings is needed that
extra length provides a mounting surface for attach-
ing the automatic welding machine.
As for the clamp connection, it is a mechanical con-
nection whose design originated in the food and dairy industry,
but whose standardization has been under development by ASME-
BPE. Due to a lack of definitive standardization, most companies
that use this type connection require in their specifications that
both the ferrule (the component upon which the clamp fits) and the
clamp itself come from the same manufacturer. This precaution is to
ensure a competent fit.
There are no specific dimensions and tolerances for the clamp
assembly, except for those being developed by ASME-BPE. Cur-
rently, it is possible to take a set of ferrules from one manufacturer,
mate them together with a gasket, attach a clamp from a different
manufacturer and tighten up on the clamp nut. In some cases, one
can literally rotate the clamp by hand about the ferrules, with no
significant force being applied on the joint seal.
The clamp joint is the clamp that applies the force that holds the
ferrules together. The fact that this can occur begs the need for
standardization to a greater degree than what cur-
rently exists. Another issue that currently exists with
the clamp joint is gasket intrusion into the pipe inside
wall, due to inadequate compression control of the
gasket.
Gasket intrusion is a problem in pharmaceutical
service for two reasons:
Depending on the hygienic fluid service and the
gasket material, the gasket protruding into the
fluid stream can break down and slough off into
the fluid flow, contaminating the hygienic fluid
The intrusion of the gasket into pipe on a horizon-
tal line can also cause fluid holdup. This can result
in the loss of residual product, cause potential cross-contamina-
tion of product, and promote microbial growth.
Some manufacturers are attempting to overcome these issues by
improving on the concept of the clamp joint. One company has
developed ferrules whose design provides compression control of
the gasket while also controlling the creep tendency that is inherent
in, arguably, the most prevalent gasket material used in high purity
piping, namely,Teflon.
Another firm manufactures a clamp joint (also provided as a
bolted connection) that does not require a gasket.This type of joint
is currently in use in Europe. While this connection alleviates the
issues that are present with a gasketed joint, added care would
need to be applied in its handling. Any scratch or ding to the
faced part of the sealing surface could compromise its sealing
integrity. Nevertheless this is a connection design worth consider-
ation.
42-47 CHE 2-07.indd 47 1/24/07 2:33:20 PM
P
ipe flanges are used to me-
chanically connect pipe sections
to other pipe sections, inline
components, and equipment.
Flanges also allow pipe to be assem-
bled and disassembled without cut-
ting or welding, which eliminates the
need for those two operations when
dismantling is required. In providing
a breakable joint, however, flanges
unfortunately provide a potential leak
path for the process fluid contained in
the pipe. Because of this, the usage of
flanges needs to be minimized where
possible, as with all other joints.
The most prevalent flange stan-
dards to be used in the process in-
dustries are based on those of the
American Soc. of Mechanical Engi-
neers (ASME). These include:
B16.1 Cast Iron Pipe Flanges and
Flanged Fittings
B16.5 - Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fit-
tings (NPS 1/2 through NPS 24,
where NPS is nominal pipe size; see
Part 1 of this series, CE, February,
pp. 4247)
B16.24 Cast Copper Alloy Pipe
Flanges and Flanged Fittings
B16.36 Orifice Flanges
B16.42 Ductile Iron Pipe Flanges
and Flanged Fittings
Large Diameter Steel Flanges (NPS*
26 through NPS 60)
B16.47 Large Diameter steel flanges
(NPS 26 through NPS 60)
Flanges are available with various
contact facings (the flange-to-flange
contact surface) and methods of con-
necting to the pipe itself. The flanges
under B16.5, a standard widely rel-
evant to the process industries, are
available in a variety of styles and
pressure classifications. The differ-
ent styles, or types, are denoted by
the way each connects to the pipe
itself and/or by the type of face. The
types of pipe-to-flange connections
include the following:
Threaded
Socket welding (or socket weld)
Slip-on welding (or slip on)
Lapped (or lap joint)
Welding neck (or weld neck)
Blind
Flange types
Threaded: The threaded flange (Fig-
ure 1), through Class 400, is connected
to threaded pipe in which the pipe
thread conforms to ASME B1.20.1.
For threaded flanges in Class 600 and
higher, the length through the hub of
the flange exceeds the limitations of
ASME B1.20.1. ASME B16.5 requires
that when using threaded flanges in
Class 600 or higher, Schedule 80 or
heavier pipe wall thickness be used,
and that the end of the pipe be reason-
ably close to the mating surface of the
flange. Note that the term reasonably
close is taken, in context, from Annex
A of ASME B16.5; it is not quantified.
In order to achieve this reasonably
close requirement, the flange thread
has to be longer and the diameters of
the smaller threads must be smaller
than that indicated in ASME B1.20.1.
When installing threaded flanges
Class 600 and higher, ASME B16.5
recommends using power equipment
to obtain the proper engagement. Sim-
ply using arm strength with a hand
wrench is not recommended.
The primary benefit of threaded
flanges is in eliminating the need for
welding. In this regard, these flanges
are sometimes used in high-pressure
service in which the operating temper-
ature is ambient. They are not suit-
able where high temperatures, cyclic
conditions or bending stresses can be
potential problems.
Socketweld: The socketweld flange is
made so that the pipe is inserted into
the socket of the flange until it hits
the shoulder of the socket. The pipe is
then backed away from the shoulder
approximately 1/16 in. before being
welded to the flange hub.
56 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com marCh 2007
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
Engineering Practice
Piping Design,
Part 2
Flanges
The engineer or designer must choose among
several flange options. Additional decisions involve
facing and surface finishes, and the appropriate
gaskets, bolts and nuts
*NPS, indicated above, is an acronym for Nomi-
nal Pipe Size.
56-61 CHE 3-07.indd 56 2/27/07 6:45:01 PM
If the pipe were resting against the
shoulder (this is the flat shelf area
depicted in Figure 2 as the differ-
ence between diameters B and B
2
) of
the socket joint during welding, heat
from the weld would expand the pipe
longitudinally into the shoulder of the
socket, forcing the pipe-to-flange weld
area to move. This could cause the
weld to crack.
The socketweld flange was initially
developed for use on small size, high-
pressure piping in which both a back-
side hub weld and an internal shoul-
der weld was made. This provided a
static strength equal to the slip-on
flange (discussed below), with a fa-
tigue strength 1.5 times that of the
slip-on flange.
Because having two welds was
labor intensive, it became the prac-
tice to weld only at the hub of the
flange. This practice relegated the
socketweld flange to be more fre-
quently used for small pipe sizes
(NPS 2 in. and below) in non-high-
pressure, utility type service piping.
The socketweld flange is not ap-
proved above Class 1500.
Slip on: Unlike the socketweld flange,
the slip-on flange (Figure 3) allows the
pipe to be inserted completely through
its hub opening. Two welds are made
to secure the flange to the pipe. One
fillet weld is made at the hub of the
flange, and the second weld is made at
the inside diameter of the flange near
the flange face.
The end of the pipe is offset from
the face of the flange by a distance
equal to the lesser of the pipe wall
thickness or in. plus approximately
1/16 in. This is to allow for enough
room to make the internal
fillet weld without damag-
ing the flange face.
The slip-on flange is a pre-
ferred flange for many appli-
cations because of its initial
lower cost, the reduced need
for cut length accuracy and
the reduction in end prep
time. However, the final in-
stalled cost is probably not
much less than that of a
weld-neck flange.
The strength of a slip-
on flange under internal
pressure is about 40% less
than that of a weld-neck
flange, and the fatigue rate
is about 66% less. The slip-
on flange is not approved
above Class 1500.
Lap joint: The lap-joint
flange (Figure 4) requires a compan-
ion lap joint, or Type A stub end (stub
ends are described below) to complete
the joint. The installer is then able to
rotate the flange. This capability al-
lows for quick bolthole alignment of
the mating flange during installation
without taking the extra precautions
required during prefabrication of a
welded flange.
Their pressure holding ability is
about the same as that of a slip-on
flange. The fatigue life of a lap-joint/
stub-end combination is about 10%
that of a weld-neck flange, with an
initial cost that is a little higher than
that of a weld-neck flange.
The real cost benefit in using a lap-
joint flange assembly is realized when
installing a stainless-steel or other
costly alloy piping system. In many
cases, the designer can elect to use a
stub end specified with the same ma-
terial as the pipe, but use a less costly,
perhaps carbon-steel, lap-joint flange.
This strategy prevents the need of
having to weld a more costly compat-
ible alloy flange to the end of the pipe.
Stub ends are prefabricated or cast
pipe flares that are welded directly to
the pipe. They are available in three
different types (Figure 5): Type A,
(which is the lap-joint stub end), Type
B and Type C.
Type A is forged or cast with an
outside radius where the flare be-
gins. This radius conforms to the
radius on the inside of the lap-joint
flange. The mating side of the flare
has a serrated surface.
Type B is forged or cast without
the radius where the flare begins. It
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com marCh 2007 57
Type A
Length
Type B
Types B and C
(type C shown)
Types A
Length
Type C
ANSI
SIip-on
fIange
ANSI
Iap-joint
fIange
Length
FIGURE 1. Threaded flanges need not be welded
Lap joint
Socket weId
WeIding neck
New:|e||er:
We||aar:
sales@coade.com
2
0
0
7
C
O
A
D
E
,
In
c
.
A
u
t
o
d
e
s
k
,
t
h
e
A
u
t
o
d
e
s
k
lo
g
o
,
a
n
d
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
a
r
e
r
e
g
is
t
e
r
e
d
t
r
a
d
e
m
a
r
k
s
o
f
A
u
t
o
d
e
s
k
,
In
c
.
Why is CADWorx one of the fastest
growing and most productive plant
design suites on the market?
Because it has all the tools to produce
intelligent plant designs, including:
Piping
Steel
Cable trays/ ducting
Collision detection
Equipment
Bills of material
Isometrics
Flow schematics
Instrument loop diagrams
Bi-directional links to analysis programs
Walkthrough and visualization
CADWorx delivers!
Contact us to find out how you can
improve your design efficiency.
Easy
Open
Scalable
PLANT
DESIGN
SUITE
C
A
D
W
o
r
x
Circle 54 on p. 122 or go to
adlinks.che.com/6900-54
Author
W. M. (Bill) Huitt has been
involved in industrial pip-
ing design, engineering and
construction since 1965.
Positions have included de-
sign engineer, piping design
instructor, project engineer,
project supervisor, pip-
ing department supervisor,
engineering manager and
president of W. M. Huitt Co.
(P.O. Box 31154, St. Louis,
MO 63131-0154. Phone: 314-966-8919; Email:
wmhuitt@aol.com) a piping consulting firm
founded in 1987. His experience covers both the
engineering and construction fields and crosses
industrial lines to include petroleum refining,
chemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, pulp
& paper, nuclear power, and coal gasification.
He has written numerous specifications includ-
ing engineering and construction guidelines to
ensure that design and construction comply
with code requirements, owner expectations
and good design practices. Huitt is a member
of ISPE (International Society of Pharmaceu-
tical Engineers), CSI (Construction Specifica-
tions Institute) and ASME (American Society
of Mechanical Engineers). He is a contributor
to ASME-BPE and sits on two corporate speci-
fication review boards.
FIGURE 5. Stub-in joint connections, such as the three samples shown here, are
used for welding the end of a pipe to the longitudinal run of another pipe
68-76 CHE 10-07.indd 76 9/29/07 5:44:00 PM
T
his fifth in a series of articles
[14] on piping design discusses
the practical issues of installa-
tion and cleaning.
PIPE INSTALLATION
The installation of pipe follows its fab-
rication and is very frequently a part
of it. The installation of pipe can be
accomplished in the following four pri-
mary ways, or combinations thereof:
1. Field fabricate and install
2.Shop fabricate and field erected
3. Skid fabrication, assembly and in-
stallation
4.Modular construction
Field fabricate and install
In the first method, the pipe is fabri-
cated onsite, either in place or in seg-
ments, at an onsite field-fabrication
area and then erected. A number of
factors will dictate whether or not it
is feasible to field fabricate, includ-
ing the following: the size and type
of the project; pipe size and material;
the facility itself; weather conditions;
availability of qualified personnel; ex-
isting building operations; cleanliness
requirements; and time available to
do the work.
Efficiency, quality and safety are
the imperatives that are factored in
when considering field fabrication.
And cost is the fallout of those factors.
Logistically speaking, if all pipe could
be fabricated onsite in a safe and ef-
ficient manner maintaining qual-
ity while doing so it would
make sense to do it in that
manner. However, before mak-
ing that final decision, lets
look at some of the pros and
cons of field fabrication:
Pros:
Only raw material (pipe, fit-
tings, valves and so on) need to be
shipped to the site location. Such
materials are much easier to handle
and store than multi-plane configu-
rations of pre-fabricated pipe
No time-consuming need to carefully
crib, tie-down and chock pre-fabri-
cated spool* pieces for transport to
the job site
Reduced risk of damage to spool
pieces
More efficient opportunity to fabri-
cate around unexpected obstacles
(structural steel, duct, cable tray,
and so on)
Fabricate-as-you-install reduces
the rework risk assumed when
pre-fabricating spools, or the cost
related to field verification prior to
shop fabrication
The field-routing installation of pipe
through an array of insufficiently
documented locations of existing pipe
and equipment, on a retrofit project,
is quite frequently more effective
than attempting to pre-fabricate pipe
based on dimensional assumptions
Cons:
Weather is arguably the biggest
deterrent. If the facility under con-
struction is not enclosed, then pro-
tection from the elements will have
to be provided
When welding has to be done in con-
ditions that are not environmentally
controlled, then pre-heating will be
required if the ambient temperature
(not the metal surface temperature)
is 0F or below
In a new facility, as opposed to hav-
ing to route piping through an
array of poorly located existing pipe
and equipment, field fabrication of
buttwelded pipe is not as efficient
and cost effective as shop fabrication
There may be concerns about safety
and efficiency when working in a
facility while it is in operation in
advance of a turnaround or to begin
advance work on a plant expansion
Generally speaking, threaded, sock-
etweld, grooved, and other propri-
etary-type joints that do not require
buttwelding are field fabricated and
installed. Buttwelding of small, 1
1/2-in. NPS and less, are very often
field fabricated and installed because
Feature Report
48 CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM APRL 2008
Engineering Practice
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
Piping Design Part 5:
Installation and
These practical guidelines for deciding
which installation procedure to follow, and for
cleaning a new pipeline system can prevent
problems from happening during startup
*Spool pieces are the pre-fabricated sections of
pipe that are fabricated and numbered in the
shop, then shipped to the job site for installa-
tion.
Cleaning
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 48 3/24/08 7:42:52 AM
of the added risk of
damage during trans-
port, in pre-fabricated
form, from the shop to
the site.
Shop fabricate
and install
Shop fabrication refers
to, generally speaking,
any pipe, fittings and
components that are
assembled by welding
into spool assemblies
at the fabricators fa-
cility. The spools are
then labeled with an
identifier and trans-
ported to the job site
for installation.
Each spool piece
needs its own identifier
marked on the piece
itself in some fashion
that will make it easy
to know where its desti-
nation is in the facility
and where it belongs in
a multi-spool system of
pipe. This will allow the installer to ef-
ficiently stage the piece and ready it
for installation.
As part of the process of developing
spool sections, field-welded joints need
to be designated. These are welded
joints that connect the pre-fabricated
spools. In doing this the designer or
fabricator will identify two different
types of field-welded joints: field weld
(FW) and field closure weld (FCW).
FW indicates a joint in which the
end of a pipe segment is prepared for
the installer to set in place and weld to
its connecting joint without additional
modification in the field. This means
that the length of pipe that is joined
to another in the field is cut precisely
to length and the end prepared in the
shop for welding.
FCW provides the installer with an
additional length of pipe, usually 4
to 6 in. longer than what is indicated
on the design drawings, to allow for
field adjustment.
What has to be considered, and what
prompts the need for a FCW, is the ac-
tual, as-installed, location of both the
fixed equipment that the pipe assem-
blies may connect to and the actual
installed location of the pipe assembly
itself. Odds are that all equipment and
piping will not be installed exactly
where indicated on design drawings.
The dimensional location of the
equipment items given on design
drawings is not a finite location, it is
merely an intended location, as are
dinensional locations on drawings for
building steel, pipe supports and oth-
ers. What factors into the installation
of shop-fabricated pipe is the actual
location of the equipment nozzle it
will be connecting to in relation to the
pipes installed location.
In connecting to equipment there is
a build-up, or stack-up, of tolerances
that will effectively place the actual,
or final, location of the nozzle at some
point in three-dimensional space, other
than where the design drawing indi-
cates. The tolerance stack-up results
from the following circumstances:
Manufacturing tolerances in mate-
rial forming, nozzle location, and
vessel support location
The actual set-in-place location of
the vessel
Load cell installation (when appli-
cable)
The actual set-in-place pipe run-
up location
In order to allow for these inevitable
deviations between the drawing di-
mensions used to fabricate the vessel,
set the vessel and install the pipe as-
sembly and the actual installed loca-
tion of the connecting points, a field-
closure piece, or two, will be required
for that final adjustment.
The field-closure piece is a designated
section of the pipe assembly in which a
field-closure weld has been indicated.
Skid (super skid) fabrication
A skid is a pre-packaged assembly that
may contain all or some of the follow-
ing that make up an operating system:
vessels, rotating equipment, piping,
automation components, operator in-
terfaces, instrumentation, gages, elec-
trical panels, wiring and connectors,
framework, supports, inline piping
components, and insulation. A single
process or utility system may fit onto
one skid or, depending on size re-
straints, may comprise multiple skids.
After fabrication of a skid is com-
plete, it will typically go through fac-
tory-acceptance testing (FAT) at the
fabricators facility. The skid is then
shipped to the job site where it is in-
stalled in its final location. After in-
stallation it would typically go through
a follow-up site-acceptance test (SAT),
including additional hydrotesting.
This is basically a system shake-down
to determine that everything is intact,
and that those things that did not re-
main intact during transport are dis-
covered and repaired.
Logistics and the necessary skill set
required for the installation, connec-
tion and startup of a particular skid
package will dictate to what extent
the skid fabricator will be involved
after it is shipped to the job site.
Modular construction
The term module or modular construc-
tion is quite often, in this context, inter-
changed with the term skid fabrication.
A module can refer to pre-fabricated
units that actually form the structure
of a facility as each is installed. Or, the
units may be smaller sub-assemblies
that, when combined, make up a com-
plete process or utility system.
Modules also consist of all or some of
the following: vessels, rotating equip-
ment, piping, automation components,
HVAC, instrumentation, electrical wir-
ing and connectors, framework, walls,
architectural components, lighting,
supports, inline piping components,
and insulation. This, as an example,
allows a complete locker-room module
to be placed and connected to a com-
plete water-treatment module.
The smaller sub-assembly modules,
in many cases, are interchanged with
the term skid. Misconception can be
avoided when a company defines these
terms, both for internal discussion
and for the purpose of making it clear
to outside contractors, as to what is
meant when using the term module.
Installation approach
Now that we have a general idea of
the four primary approaches to piping
installations how do we decide which
is the best method, or combination of
methods, to use for a particular proj-
ect? Each project is unique with its
own particular set of decision drivers
with regard to a selected execution
approach. There are no hard and fast
CHEMCAL ENGNEERNG WWW.CHE.COM APRL 2008 49
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 49 3/19/08 1:05:20 PM
rules for determining a best approach.
It requires experienced personnel to
assign values to the various aspects of
project execution, overlay a timeline,
and then assess logistics. It sounds
simple, but in actuality can be a very
complex process.
Therefore, the following is a guide-
line and not a hard and fast set of rules.
There are simply too many project vari-
ables and complexities otherwise.
When considering an approach,
keep in mind that the method of in-
stallation needs to be weighed against
a contractors preferred methodology.
This does not imply that the contrac-
tors preferred methodology should
drive your decision on how to execute
a job. On the contrary, once you deter-
mine how the job needs to be executed,
then look to only those contractors
whose preferred methodology agrees
with your project execution plans.
Some contractors prefer to do most,
if not all, fabrication in the shop, oth-
ers prefer to set up at the job site,
while others are flexible enough to
utilize the best of both methods.
The three main criteria discussed
above efficiency, quality and safety
would apply here as well. Using
these three elements as a basis for
making a determination, let us look at
some common variables.
Environment: The environment is
only a factor when work has to be
done in an open-air structure or other
outdoor installation (such as tank
farm, pipeline, pipe rack or yard pip-
ing). Working in an open-air structure
will require protection from the ele-
ments (such as rain, snow, wind and
cold). In addition, there may also be a
requirement to work in elevated areas
with the use of scaffolding. All of this
can have a potential impact on safety
and efficiency.
Pipe-rack installation consists
mainly of straight runs of pipe, and
will not necessarily have a require-
ment or need for pre-fabrication.
That is, unless it is pre-fabricated as
modular-skid units. Depending on the
project, it could be cost effective on an
overall strategic basis to modularize
the pipe rack, steel and all.
The big advantage to shop fabrica-
tion is the controlled environment in
which its done. This includes the qual-
ity control aspect, better equipment
(generally speaking), a routine meth-
odology of how a piece of work pro-
gresses through the shop, and better
control, through a developed routine
of required documentation.
Industry: The various sectors of the
chemical process industries (CPI) can
be grouped into two categories: clean/
indoor build and non-clean/outdoor
build. Realizing that there will be
exceptions to this generalization, we
can include in the clean/indoor built
category: pharmaceutical, biophar-
maceutical, semiconductor and food
and dairy. Under non-clean/outdoor
build we can include: petroleum refin-
ing; bulk chemicals; pulp and paper;
off-shore; pipeline (oil and gas); and
power generation.
The clean-build philosophy comes
from the need to construct certain fa-
cilities with a more stringent control
on construction debris. Those indus-
tries included in this category often re-
quire a facility at least a portion of a
facility to be microbial and particu-
late free, as stipulated by the design.
There can be no debris, organic or
inorganic, remaining after construc-
tion in accessible or inaccessible
spaces of the facility. Of particular
concern with pharmaceutical, bio-
pharm and food-and-dairy facilities
are food waste and hidden moisture.
Food waste can entice and support ro-
dents and insects, and hidden mois-
ture can propagate mold, which can
eventually become airborne. If these
intruders are not discovered until the
facility is in operation, the impact,
upon discovery, can potentially be
devastating to production.
Such contamination can be found
in one of two ways. Discovery at the
source, possibly behind a wall or some
other out-of-the-way place, means that
not only does current production have
to cease, but product will have to be an-
alyzed for possible contamination. Once
found, it then has to be remediated.
The other method of discovery
comes from the continuous testing
and validation of the product stream.
If a contaminant is discovered in
the product, the production line is
stopped, and the problem becomes an
investigation into finding the source
of the contamination.
The clean-build philosophy, there-
fore, dictates more stringent and strict
requirements for controlling and in-
specting for debris on an ongoing basis
throughout construction and startup.
It will be necessary, on a clean-build
site, to adhere to the following rather
simple rules:
Smoking or smokeless tobacco prod-
ucts of any kind are not allowed on
the site property
Provide for offsite break and lunch
areas; no food or drink, other than
water, are allowed on the site
premises
Do not begin installing pipe, duct or
equipment until, at the very least, a
roof is installed
After roof and walls are installed,
ensure that there is no standing
water remaining in the facility
Prior to and during the construc-
tion of hollow walls, such as those
framed and dry-walled, ensure on a
daily basis that there is no moisture
or debris in the wall cavity
Duct work delivered to the job site
shall have the ends covered with a
plastic sheet material, which shall
remain on the ends until connected
in place
Fabricated pipe delivered to the job
site shall have the ends covered in a
suitable fashion with suitable ma-
terial, and the cover shall remain
on the ends until pipe is ready to be
connected in place
During and after flushing and test-
ing of pipelines, all water spills
shall be controlled to the extent
possible and shall be cleaned after
each flushing and testing or at the
end of the work day
Type of project
While the type of project is not the
main influence in determining how
you approach the execution of a proj-
ect, it does play a key role. It will help
drive the decision as to how the piping
should be fabricated and installed.
For example, if the project is a ret-
rofit, it will require much of the pipe,
regardless of size and joint connec-
tion, to be field fabricated and in-
stalled. This is due simply to the fact
that the effort and cost necessary to
verify the location of all existing pipe,
equipment, walls, columns, duct and
Engineering Practice
50 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com april 2008
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 50 3/19/08 1:06:21 PM
so on, in a somewhat precise
manner, would not be very
practical. You would be bet-
ter served by field verifying
the approximate location of
the above items with existing
drawings, for planning and
logistic purposes, then shop
or field fabricate, verify and
install as you go.
A fast track project, one that
has a compressed schedule,
will require parallel activities where
possible. Shop and skid fabrication
would be utilized as much as possible
simply to expend more man-hours
over a shorter time period while at-
tempting to maintain efficiency, even
though there may be added cost to
this approach. This approach is time
driven and not budgetary driven.
A new grassroots facility still re-
quires routing verification as you go,
but certainly not the much-more in-
volved need to locate previously in-
stalled obstructions that is necessary
when working with an existing facility.
If the project is a clean-build project
inside an environmentally controlled
area, it will be more practical to shop
fabricate or utilize skid or modular fab-
rication for most, if not all of the piping.
This will reduce the number of person-
nel and the amount of fabrication de-
bris in the facility, and provide better
control for keeping it out of the pipe
itself. With personnel, you could have
food wrappers, drink cans and bottles,
food waste, and clothing items. Fabrica-
tion debris could include metal filings,
cutting oil, pieces of pipe, weld-rod and
weld-wire remnants, and so on.
If the project is not a clean-build, but
is still inside an environmentally con-
trolled facility, the same logic does not
necessarily apply. The decision to shop
fabricate and install or to field fabri-
cate and install becomes one based
on efficiency rather than how best to
maintain a clean area. But thats not to
say that if it doesnt qualify as a clean-
build project then the construction de-
bris can just be allowed to pile up.
There is still safety and efficiency
to consider on any project, and a clean
job site is a major part of that. Main-
taining a clean job site is an integral
component of good project execution.
Keeping personnel and equipment
to a minimum at the job site is not
an absolute, but is one of the key con-
siderations to the efficiency of pipe
installation. Following that logic,
most of the buttwelded pipe should
be shop fabricated. A couple of things
to consider, when determining which
buttwelded pipe to shop fabricate, are
size and material.
Pipe material and size range
Shop-fabricated spools need to be
transported to the job site, which re-
quires handling. Handling and trans-
porting small diameter pipe and thin-
wall tubing spools create the potential
for damage to those spools.
If you are shop fabricating every-
thing and the distance from shop to
site is across town, the risk to dam-
aging small-diameter pipe spools is a
great deal less than if they have to be
shipped halfway across the U.S., Eu-
rope or Asia, or even across an ocean.
In transporting spools over long
distances, unless there is a great deal
of thought and care given to cribbing
the load of spools, it may not be ben-
eficial to transport buttwelded pipe
spools NPS 1 1/2 in. and less. It may be
more practical to fabricate these sizes
on site, unless you are fabricating hy-
gienic or semiconductor piping; these
types of systems require a great deal
more control and a cleaner fabrication,
meaning that pipe fabrication will re-
quire a clean shop area onsite, or the
pipe will need to be fabricated at an
offsite, better controlled shop facility.
A practical rule of thumb in deter-
mining what to fabricate in the shop
or in the field is provided in Table 1.
Dictates of the project and a contrac-
tors standard operating proceedures
will determine how best to define
what is shop fabricated and what is
field fabricated.
TABLE 1. SHOP VERSUS FIELD FABRICATION
Size (in.) Material Joint Shop or field
1 Pipe 1, 2, 3, 6 Field
1 Pipe 4 & 5 Shop
2 Pipe 3 & 6 Field
2 Pipe 4 & 5 Shop
1 Tubing 5 Field
1 Tubing 5 Shop (a, b)
1 Tubing 5 Shop
Joint Type:
1 = Socketweld
2 = Threaded
3 = Grooved Fully (Grooved fittings and pipe ends.)
4 = Grooved Partially (Shop-welded spools with grooved
ends.)
5 = Buttweld
6 = Flanged Lined or unlined Pipe
Notes:
a. Hygienic tubing
b. Special cribbing and support for transport
Circle 30 on p. 76 or go to adlinks.che.com/7371-30
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 51 3/24/08 8:20:06 AM
Petroleum-refining and bulk-chem-
ical projects are generally open-air
projects in which field fabrication
and installation of pipe are exposed
to the elements. While a clean build
is not a requirement on these types
of projects efficiency and, above all,
safety are. Because of this, it would
make sense to utilize shop fabrication
as much as possible.
Fabricating pipe spools under better-
controlled shop conditions will provide
improved efficiency and safer-per-hour
working conditions over what you will
generally find in the field. This trans-
lates into fewer accidents.
Referring back to Table 1, with
respect to the potential for damage
during transport, pipe sizes NPS 23
in. and larger ship much better than
smaller pipe sizes, particularly when
working with thin-wall tubing.
Location
Job-site location is one of the key
markers in determining shop or field
fabrication. In many cases, building a
facility in a remote location will be a
driver for utilizing a disproportionate
amount of skid or module fabrication
disproportionate in the sense that
project management may look at modu-
larizing the entire job, rather than mo-
bilize the staffing and facilities needed
to fabricate and install on or near the
job site. This would constitute a larger
amount of modularization over what
might normally be expected for the
same type project in a more metropoli-
tan region, or an area with reasonable
access to needed resources.
To expand on that thought; it was
pointed out to me by Earl Lamson,
senior project manager with Eli Lilly
and Co., that project resources, even
in metropolitan areas, are quite fre-
quently siloed around a specific in-
dustry segment. In certain regions of
the U.S. for example, you may discover
that there is an abundance of crafts-
man available when building a refin-
ery, but that same region may have
difficulty, from a trained and experi-
enced personnel perspective, in sup-
porting the construction of a semicon-
ductor facility.
Consequently when building a phar-
maceutical facility in another region
you may find a sufficient population
of trained and expe-
rienced craftsman for
that industry, but may
not find resources ad-
equate when building
a chemical plant.
Building a project in
a remote location re-
quires the project team
to rethink the job-as-
usual methodology. From a logistics
standpoint, mobilization of personnel
and material become a major factor
in determining the overall execution
of such a project. Project planning is
a big component in project execution,
but is more so when attempting to
build in remote areas. And this doesnt
even touch on the security aspect.
Nowadays, when constructing in
any number of remote areas, security
is a real concern that requires real
consideration and real resolution. Re-
duced onsite staffing is a good counter
measure in reducing risk to personnel
when building in remote or even non-
remote third-world areas.
PIPE SYSTEM CLEANING
While there are requirements in
ASME for leak testing, cleaning re-
quirements do not exist. ASTM A 380
and 967 has standards on cleaning,
descaling and passivation, but there
is nothing in ASTM on simply flush-
ing and general cleaning. Defining the
requirements for the internal cleaning
of piping systems falls within the re-
sponsibilities of the owner.
The term cleaning, in this context,
is a catch-all term that also includes
flushing, chemical cleaning, and pas-
sivation. So before we go further, let
me provide some definition for these
terms as they apply in this context, be-
cause these terms are somewhat flex-
ible in their meaning, depending on
source and context, and could be used
to describe activities other than what
is intended here.
Definitions
Cleaning: This is a process by which
water, solvents, acids or proprietary
cleaning solutions are flushed through
a piping system to remove contami-
nants such as cutting oils, metal fil-
ings, weld spatter, dirt and other un-
wanted debris.
Flushing. This is a process by which
water, air or an inert gas is forced
through a piping system either in
preparation for chemical cleaning or
as the only cleaning process. Flushing
can be accomplished by using dynamic
pressure head or released static pres-
sure head, as in a fill-and-dump proce-
dure. Blow-down can be considered as
flushing with a gas.
Passivation. In this process, a chemi-
cal solution, usually with a base of
nitric, phosphoric, citric acid or other
mild oxidant, is used to promote or ac-
celerate the formation of a thin (2550
), protective oxide layer (a passive
layer) on the internal surfaces of pipe,
fittings and equipment. In stainless
steels the most commonly used alloy
at present passivation removes any
free iron from the pipe surface to form
a chromium-rich oxide layer to protect
the metal surface from aggressive liq-
uids such as high-purity waters.
Note that the terms cleaning and
flushing can be interchanged when
the process only requires water, air or
an inert gas to meet the required level
of cleanliness. When the term clean-
ing is used in this context it may infer
what is defined as flushing.
Cleaning and testing
With regard to cleaning and leak test-
ing, and which to do first, there are
drivers for both and different schools
of thought on the overall process. Each
contractor will have its preference. It
is in the owners best interest to deter-
mine its preference or be at risk in just
leaving it to the contractor. In either
case you should have a line of thought
on the process, if for no other reason
than to be able to understand what
the contractor is proposing to do.
At the very least, in advance of leak
testing, perform either a basic flush of
a test circuit, or perform an internal
visual examination as the pipe is in-
Engineering Practice
52 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com april 2008
TABLE 2. GENERAL CLEANING SCENARIOS
Category Description
C-1 Flush only (water, air or inert gas)
C-2 Flush, clean with cleaning solution, flush
C-3 Clean with cleaning solution, flush
C-4 Flush, clean, passivate, flush
TABLE 3. GENERAL LEAK TESTING SCENARIOS
Category Description
T-1 Initial service leak test
T-2 Hydrostatic leak test
T-3 Pneumatic leak test
T-4 Sensitive leak test
T-5 Alternative leak test
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 52 3/19/08 1:10:39 PM
stalled. A walk-down of the test circuit
should be done just prior to filling the
system with any liquid. The last thing
you want to happen is to discover too
late that a joint wasnt fully connected
or an inline component was taken out
of the pipeline. In a facility that is not
a clean-build, it can simply be a mess
that has to be cleaned. In a clean-build
facility, an incident such as this can
potentially be costly and time consum-
ing to remediate.
Tables 2 and 3 list general clean-
ing and testing procedures along with
easy-to-use indicators.
Since this article is concerned with
new pipe installations, we will not in-
clude steam-out cleaning or pipeline
pigging in our discussion. These are
cleaning procedures that are used on
in-service piping to clean the fluid ser-
vice residue buildup from interior pipe
walls after a period of use.
Before subjecting the system to an
internal test pressure, you should first
perform a walk down of the piping to
make certain, as mentioned earlier,
that there are no missing or loose com-
ponents. The system is then flushed
with water or air to make sure that
there are no obstacles in the piping.
Over the years, we have discovered
everything from soda cans to shop
towels, work gloves, nuts and bolts,
weld rod, Styrofoam cups, candy wrap-
pers, and other miscellaneous debris,
including dirt and rocks in installed
piping systems.
After an initial flush, which could
also be the only flush and cleaning re-
quired, the system is ready for chemi-
cal cleaning or leak testing. In large
systems, it may be beneficial to leak
test smaller test circuits and then per-
form a final cleaning once the entire
system is installed and tested. This
would include a final completed sys-
tem leak test that would test all of the
joints that connect the test circuits.
That is, unless these joints were tested
as the assembly progressed.
On large systems, if it is decided
to leak test smaller segments, or test
circuits as they are installed (prior to
flushing the entire system), the piping
needs to be examined internally as
it is installed. This is to prevent any
large-debris items from remaining in
the piping during the test.
Now that we have
touched on generali-
ties, lets take a look
at each of the clean-
ing categories listed in
Table 2 and see how to
apply them.
Cleaning Category
C-1: This is simply a
flush with water, air
or inert gas. The one non-manual
assist that water requires in order
for it to clean the inside of a piping
system is velocity. But what velocity
is necessary?
The main concept behind flushing
a pipeline is to dislodge and remove
suspected debris. In order to dislodge,
suspend and remove this unwanted
material in the piping system, it is
necessary that water or air be forced
through the piping system at a veloc-
ity sufficient to suspend the heaviest
suspected particles and move them
along the pipeline.
The velocity required to suspend
the particles and move them along
the pipeline for removal is dependent
upon their size and weight, and the
flush medium. Metal filings, arguably
the heaviest particles normally found
in newly fabricated pipe, will have a
terminal mid-range settling veloc-
ity, in water, of approximately 10 ft/s.
Therefore, a flushing velocity of ap-
proximately 10 ft/s should be achieved
during the flush. (This does not apply
to acid cleaning.) Table 4 indicates the
rate of flow required to achieve ap-
proximately 10 ft/s of velocity through
various sizes and schedules of pipe.
Purging a piping system clear of de-
bris with air requires a velocity of ap-
proximately 25 ft/s. Table 5 indicates
the air flowrate required to achieve ap-
proximately 25 ft/s of velocity through
various sizes and schedules of pipe.
One thing you might notice is that
the size range only extends to 4-in.
NPS for both the liquid flush and for
the air or gas blow-down. The reason
for that is the volume of liquid or gas
required to achieve the necessary ve-
locity through the larger pipe sizes is
quite significant.
For example, a 6-in. NPS pipeline
would require approximately 900
to 1,000 gal/min, depending on wall
thickness of the pipe, to achieve a ve-
locity of 10 ft/s. This gets a little cum-
bersome and costly unless you have
pumps or compressors in place that
can achieve the necessary flowrate.
The alternative for liquid flushing
the larger pipe sizes other than using
source line pressure or a pump is to
perform a fill-and-dump. In this pro-
cess, the pipe system is completely
filled with liquid and then drained
through a full-line-size, quick-open-
ing valve. In doing this, there has to
be enough static head to generate suf-
ficient force and velocity to achieve
essentially the same result as the
pumped or line pressure liquid.
Cleaning Category C-2: This is a
three-step process by which the piping
system is initially flushed out with a
liquid to remove most of the loose de-
bris. This is followed by the circulation
of a cleaning solution, which is then
followed by a final flush of water.
Cleaning solutions are, in many
cases, proprietary detergent or acid-
based solutions each blended for spe-
cific uses. Detergent-based solutions
are generally used for removing dirt,
cutting oils and grease. Acid-based so-
lutions are used to remove the same
contaminants as the detergent-base
plus weld discoloration and residue.
The acid-based solution also passiv-
ates the pipe wall.
As defined earlier, passivation
provides a protective oxide barrier
against corrosion. The acids used in
some cleaning solutions for ferrous
and copper materials leave behind a
passivated interior pipe surface as a
result of the cleaning process. In util-
ity water services, such as tower and
chilled water, this barrier against cor-
rosion is maintained with corrosion
inhibitors that are injected into the
fluid stream on an ongoing basis.
Keep in mind that the formation of
passivated surfaces is a natural occur-
rence with metals in an oxygen envi-
Engineering Practice
54 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com april 2008
TABLE 4. RATE OF FLUSHING LIQUID (GAL/
MIN) NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A VELOCITY OF
APPROXIMATELY 10 FT/S
Pipe
Sch.
Pipe size (in.)
1 1 2 3 4
5S 12 20 34 77 123 272 460
40 10 16 27 64 105 230 397
80 7 13 22 55 92
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 54 3/19/08 1:16:50 PM
ronment; the acid merely initiates and
speeds up the process.
When using stainless alloys usu-
ally 316L, in hygienic-water services
such as water for injection (WFI), pu-
rified water, deionized (DI) water and
in some cases soft water passiv-
ation is a final step in the preparation
for service of these pipelines.
Passivation is also a periodic ongo-
ing preventative-maintenance pro-
cedure. High-purity water is very
corrosive and attacks any free iron
found on the surface of stainless-steel
pipe. Free iron has a tendency to come
out of solution when material is cold
worked, as in bending or forming pipe
without the benefit of heat. It also oc-
curs with the threading of alloy bolts,
which are solution annealed (heat
treated) after threading. Passivation
removes this free iron while also ac-
celerating, in the presence of O
2
, the
oxidation rate of the stainless steel,
providing a chromium-rich, oxide cor-
rosion barrier as defined above.
Over time (and this is one hypothet-
ical thought on the subject), this very
thin corrosion barrier tends to get
depleted or worn off, particularly at
high impingement areas of the piping
system, such as elbows, tees and pump
casings. Once the passive layer wears
through, any free iron exposed to the
high purity water will oxidize, or rust.
This will show up as surface rouge.
Rouging is an unwanted surface dis-
coloration that is periodically removed
by means of a derouging process. This
is an operational, as-needed chemical-
cleaning process that will remove all
or most of the rouge and also re-pas-
sivate the internal pipe surface.
Discussions and research on the topic
of rouging continue. This is a subject
that has more questions than answers
at the present time. Currently, the
ASME-BPE is looking into this issue.
One of the questions to be answered is
whether or not rouge is actually detri-
mental to product streams.
Cleaning Category C-3: This is a
two-step cleaning process that uses
a detergent- or acid-based solution
to clean the pipe interior of any un-
wanted residue or debris. This is then
followed by a final flush of water.
Cleaning Category C-4: This is a
three- or four-step process generally
info.dsmpharmaceuticals@dsm.com 973.257.8011
Well take you there.
API Manufacturing | Clinical Manufacturing | Dosage Form Manufacturing | Scale Up
VISIT US AT
BIO
SAN DIEGO JUNE 17 20
Booth #218
www.dsmpharmaceuticals.com
BLEED SIZE 5.25 X 11
CHEM ENGINEERING
Circle 32 on p. 76 or go to adlinks.che.com/7371-32
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 55 3/19/08 1:18:49 PM
used in hygienic service piping. In
most cases, simply due to the clean
fabrication approach used in hygienic
pipe fabrication, only a water flush
with deionized- (DI) quality water, or
better, would be necessary for cleaning
,followed by passivation of the piping
system, then a final flush of water.
There are variations to each of these
primary cleaning functions and it
would be in an owners best interest to
define these requirements, by fluid ser-
vice, in advance of the work to be done.
Cleaning procedures
This section describes some fundamen-
tal cleaning procedures as they might
appear in a specification or guideline
and includes the leak-test procedures
that will follow in Part 6. This will give
you some idea as to what you might
consider developing for your own set
of specifications. Assuming that if your
company repeatedly executes projects
you will have cleaning and testing
guidelines, in some form, prepared for
your contractor. If not, you may not get
what you expect. Its better to give some
forethought to these activities rather
than be surprised at the results.
Once a menu of these cleaning and
testing procedures are developed, using
pre-assigned symbols, similar to those
given in the following, they can then be
specified in the line list with the respec-
tive fluid services as you require. In
this manner, there is no second guess-
ing during construction. Each piping
circuit is assigned a specific clean and
test protocol in advance.
Many pre-developed procedures I
have seen over the years, those de-
veloped by owners in particular, have
been very simplistic, and typically out
of date. This is an indicator to most con-
tractors that the owners representative
will most likely not attempt to enforce
them. The contractor, in making that
assumption, may simply ignore them
and perform their own procedures.
Your procedural guidelines should
be explicit and current to ensure that
the contractors know that someone
has given some thought to how he or
she wants that work accomplished,
making it far more likely that the con-
tractors will execute your procedure
instead of their own.
It is certainly acceptable to accom-
modate suggestions to a procedure
from a contractor when they dont
compromise the intent of the owners
requirements and are likely to im-
prove the efficiency of the contractor.
If a submitted alternate procedure
does not compromise the intent of the
owner, it is recommended that it be
accepted. This will allow the owner
to see if that efficiency is really there.
With that in mind, lets create a couple
of general cleaning procedures.
A general practice in the flushing
and cleaning process (also indicated
in leak testing), is the evacuation of
air when using liquids. Always pro-
vide high-point vents for evacuating
air during the fill cycle and low point
drains for clearing out all of the liquid
when the process is complete.
Using the same terminology in
Table 2 these cleaning procedures will
be categorized as follows:
Category C-1: Flush or blowdown
only (water, air or inert gas)
C-1.1 These systems shall be
flushed with the fluid that the sys-
tem is intended for. There shall be
no hydrostatic or pneumatic leak
test. An initial-service leak test will
be performed.
a. Connect system to its permanent
supply line. Include a permanent
block valve at the supply line con-
nection. All outlets shall have tem-
porary hoses run to drain. Do not
flush through coils, plates, strainers
or filter elements.
b. Using supply line pressure, flush
system through all outlets until
water is clear and free of any debris
at all outlet points. Flush a quantity
of fluid through each branch not less
than three times that contained in
the system. Use Table 6 to estimate
volume of liquid in the system.
c. These systems are required only to
undergo an initial-service leak test.
During the flushing procedure, and
as the system is placed into service,
all joints shall be checked for leaks.
d. Any leaks discovered during the flush-
ing process, or during the process of
placing the system into service, will
require the system to be drained and
repaired. After which the process will
start over with Step 2.
C-1.2 These systems shall be
flushed clean with potable water.
a. Connect a flush/test manifold at a
designated inlet to the system, and
a temporary hose or pipe on the des-
ignated outlet(s) of the system.
b. Route temporary hose or pipe from
potable water supply, approved by
owner, and connect to flush/test
manifold. Route outlet hose or pipe
to sewer, or as directed by owner
represenative. Secure end of outlet.
c. Using a once through procedure
(not a re-circulation), and the rate
of flow in Table 4, perform an ini-
tial flush through the system with
a quantity of potable water not less
than three times that contained in
the system. Use Table 6 to estimate
volume of liquid in the system. Dis-
charge to sewer, or as directed by
owner representative.
d. After the initial flush, insert a coni-
cal strainer into a spool piece located
between the discharge of the piping
system and the outlet hose. Perform
a second flush with a volume of po-
table water not less than that con-
tained in the system.
e. After the second flush (Step d), pull
the strainer and check for debris; if
debris is found repeat Step c. If no
debris is found the system is ready
for leak testing.
Category C2: Flush then clean with
cleaning solution, followed by a neu-
tralization rinse. Because of the thor-
oughness of the flush, clean and rinse
process there should be no need to
Engineering Practice
56 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com april 2008
TABLE 5. RATE OF AIR FLOW (FT
3
/S) TO MAINTAIN A VELOCITY OF
APPROXIMATELY 25 FT/S
Pipe
Sch.
Pipe Sizes (in.)
1 1 2 3 4
Press.
15
psig
5S 0.14 0.23 0.39 0.86 1.39 3.06 5.17
40 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.71 1.18 2.59 4.47
80 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.62 1.04 2.32 4.03
Press.
50
psig
5S 0.30 0.51 0.84 1.88 3.02 6.67 11.3
40 0.23 0.41 0.66 1.56 2.56 5.65 9.73
80 0.18 0.33 0.55 1.35 2.26 5.05 8.79
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 56 3/19/08 1:19:31 PM
check for transient debris, only for
neutralization. However, if circum-
stances dictate otherwise, then a final
check for debris may be warranted.
C-2.1 These systems shall be pre-
flushed with potable water, cleaned
with (indicate cleaning agent) then a
rinse/neutralization followed by leak
testing with potable water. If it is
determined that the system will be
installed and tested progressively in
segments, the sequence of cleaning
and testing can be altered to follow the
segmented installation, thereby leak
testing segments of a piping system
as they are installed without clean-
ing. The entire system would then be
cleaned once installed and tested.
a. Hook up flush/test manifold at a des-
ignated temporary inlet to the sys-
tem between the circulating pump
discharge and the system inlet. In-
stall a temporary hose or pipe on the
designated outlet(s) of the system.
b. Route temporary hose or pipe from
potable water supply, approved by
owner, and connect to flush/test
manifold. Route outlet hose or pipe
to sewer, or as directed by owners
representative.
c. Close valve between the circulating
pump (if no valve is included in the
system design, insert a line-blind or
install a blind flange with a drain
valve) discharge and flush/test rig.
Open valve between flush/test man-
ifold and piping system.
d. Using the once-through procedure
(meaning the cleaning fluid is not
re-circulated), and the rate of flow
in Table 4, perform an initial flush
through the system, bypassing the
circulation pump, with a quantity
of potable water equal to not less
than three times that contained in
the system. Use Table 6 to estimate
volume of liquid in the system.
(Note: During the water flush, check
the system for leaks. Verify no leaks
prior to introducing chemical cleaning
solution to the piping system.)
e. Discharge to sewer, or as directed by
owners representative.
f. After completing the initial flush,
drain remaining water in the sys-
tem. Or, retain water if cleaning
chemicals will be added to the circu-
lating water.
g. Configure valves and hoses to cir-
culate through pump. Connect head
tank, or other source containing
cleaning agent, to connection pro-
vided on circulation loop.
h. Fill the system with the pre-mea-
sured (indicate preferred clean-
ing agent and mixing ratio or per-
centage by volume) and circulate
through the system for 48 h. To
minimize corrosion, if anticipated,
circulate cleaning agent at a low-
velocity rate prescribed by the
cleaning-agent manufacturer.
i. Drain cleaning agent to sewer or
containment, as directed by owner.
j. Reconnect, as in Step a, for the once
through flush/neutralization, and
flush system with potable water
using a quantity not less than three
times that of the system volume.
Since the (name cleaning agent) so-
lution has a neutral pH, the rinse
water will have to be visually ex-
amined for clarity. Rinse until clear.
The rinse must be started as quickly
after the cleaning cycle as possible.
If cleaning residue is allowed to dry
on the interior pipe wall, it will be
more difficult to remove by simply
flushing. The final rinse and neu-
tralization must be accomplished
before any possible residue has
time to dry.
k. Test pH for neutralization. Once
neutralization is achieved proceed
to Step l.
l. Remove pump and temporary circu-
lation loop, then configure the system
for leak testing. This may include re-
moval of some components, insertion
of line-blinds, installation of tempo-
rary spools pieces and so on.
These three examples should pro-
vide an idea as to the kind of dialog
that needs to be created in providing
guidance and direction to the contrac-
tor responsible for the work. And, as
stated earlier, these procedures, for
the most part, are flexible enough
to accommodate suggested modifica-
tions from the contractor.
Edited by Gerald Ondrey
Acknowledgement
The authors deep appreciation again
goes to Earl Lamson, senior project
manager with Eli Lilly and Co., for
taking the time to review these arti-
cles. His comments help make this ar-
ticle, and the others, better documents
than they otherwise would have been.
He obliged me by applying the same
skill, intelligence and insight he brings
to everything he does. His comments
kept me concise and on target.
References
1. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: The Ba-
sics, Chem. Eng. February 2007, pp. 4247.
2. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Flanges,
Chem. Eng. March 2007, pp. 5661.
3. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Design
Elements, Chem. Eng. July 2007, pp. 5057.
4. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Codes
and Fabrication, Chem. Eng. February 2007,
pp. 6876.
TABLE 6. VOLUME OF WATER (GAL) PER LINEAL FOOT OF PIPE
Pipe Sizes (in.)
Sch. 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24
5S .021 .035 .058 .129 .207 .455 .771 1.68
20 2.71 4.31 6.16 7.34 9.70 12.4 15.2 22.2
40 .016 .028 .045 .106 .176 .386 .664 1.51 2.61 4.11 5.84 9.22 9.22 14.5 14.5
80 .012 .023 .037 .093 .154 .345 .60 1.36
Author
W. M. (Bill) Huitt has been
involved in industrial pip-
ing design, engineering and
construction since 1965. Posi-
tions have included design en-
gineer, piping design instruc-
tor, project engineer, project
supervisor, piping depart-
ment supervisor, engineering
manager and president of W.
M. Huitt Co. (P.O. Box 31154,
St. Louis, MO 63131-0154.
Phone: 314-966-8919; Email: wmhuitt@aol.
com) a piping consulting firm founded in 1987.
His experience covers both the engineering and
construction fields and crosses industrial lines
to include petroleum refining, chemical, petro-
chemical, pharmaceutical, pulp & paper, nuclear
power, and coal gasification. He has written nu-
merous specifications including engineering and
construction guidelines to ensure that design
and construction comply with code requirements,
owner expectations and good design practices.
Bill is a member of ISPE (International Society
of Pharmaceutical Engineers), CSI (Construction
Specifications Institute) and ASME (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers). He is a con-
tributor to ASME-BPE and sits on two corporate
specification review boards.
Engineering Practice
58 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com april 2008
17_CHE_041508_EP_GSO.indd 58 3/27/08 7:17:16 AM
T
his sixth and final part of a series
of articles [15] on piping for pro-
cess plants discusses practical is-
sues of leak testing and verifica-
tion of piping systems.
LEAK TESTING
Leak testing and pressure testing are
often used synonymously. However,
pressure testing is a misnomer when
referring to leak testing of piping sys-
tems. By definition, a pressure test is
the procedure performed on a relief
valve to test its set-point pressure.
The intent, when pressure testing a
relief valve, is not to check for leaks,
but to test the pressure set point of the
valve by gradually adding pressure to
the relief valve until it lifts the valve
off of the seat.
A leak test, on the other hand, is
performed to check the sealing integ-
rity of a piping system by applying
internal pressure to a pre-determined
limit, based on design conditions, then
checking joints and component seals
for leaks. It is not intended that the
MAWP (maximum allowable working
pressure) of a piping system be veri-
fied or validated.
Before discussing the various types
of leak tests and leak-test procedures
I would like to briefly talk about con-
trolling and tracking this activity.
Testing, like many aspects of a project,
should be a controlled process. There
should be a formal method of docu-
menting and tracking this activity as
the contractor proceeds through the
leak testing process.
Documentation
In documenting the leak testing activ-
ity there are certain forms that will be
needed. They consist of the following:
1. A dedicated set of piping and in-
strumentation diagrams (P&IDs) to
identify the limits and number the
test circuits
2. A form to record components that
were either installed or removed
prior to testing
3. A checklist form for field supervi-
sion to ensure that each step of the
test process is accomplished
4. Leak-test data forms
The two sets of documents, from
those listed above, that need to be
retained are the P&IDs and the leak-
test data forms. The other two sets of
forms are procedural checklists.
The leak-test data forms should con-
tain key data such as the following:
1. Test circuit number
2. P&ID number(s)
3. Date of test
4. Project name or number, or both
5. Location within facility
6. Line number(s)
7. Design pressure
8. Test pressure
9. Test fluid
10. Test fluid temperature
11. Time (military) recorded test begins
12. Pressure at start of test
13. Time (military) recorded test ends
14. Pressure at end of test
15. Total elapsed time of test
16. Total pressure differential (plus or
minus) from the beginning to the
end of test period
17. Comment section (indicate if leaks
were found and system was repaired
and retested or if system passed)
18. Signatures and dates
Also make certain that
the testing contractor has
current calibration logs of
his or her test instruments,
such as pressure gages.
Primary leak tests
ASME B31.3 defines five pri-
mary leak tests as follows:
Initial service leak test. This applies
only to those fluid services meeting the
criteria as defined under ASME B31.3
Category D fluid service. This includes
fluids in which the following apply:
The fluid handled is nonflamma-
ble, nontoxic, and not damaging to
human tissue
The design gage pressure does not
exceed 1,035 kPa (150 psi)
The design temperature is from
29C (20F) through 186C (366F)
The initial service leak test is a pro-
cess by which the test fluid is the fluid
that is to be used in the intended pip-
ing system at operating pressure and
temperature. It is accomplished by
connecting to the fluid source with a
valved connection and then gradually
opening the source valve and filling
the system. In liquid systems, air is
purged during the fill cycle through
high point vents. A rolling examination
of all joints is continually performed
during the fill cycle and for a period
of time after the system is completely
filled and is under line pressure.
In a situation in which the pipeline
that is being tested has distribution
on multiple floors of a facility, there
will be pressure differentials between
the floors due to static head differ-
ences. This will occur in operation
Feature Report
48 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008
Engineering Practice
Proper documentation, determination of the fluid service category
and operating conditions are among the factors necessary
to perform the correct leak test on a piping system
Piping for Process Plants Part 6:
Testing & Verification
W. M. Huitt
W. M. Huitt Co.
17_CHE_061508_EP_GSO.indd 48 5/22/08 2:48:28 PM
and is acceptable under initial ser-
vice test conditions.
The test pressure achieved for ini-
tial service testing is what it will be
in operation. The only difference is
that the flowing fluid during opera-
tion will incur an amount of pressure
drop that will not be present during
the static test.
Hydrostatic leak test. This is the
most commonly used leak test and is
performed by using a liquid, normally
water, and in some cases with addi-
tives to prevent freezing, under a pres-
sure calculated by Equation (1):
(1)
P
P S
S
T
T
=
1 5 .
where
P
T
= Test pressure, psi
P = Internal design gage pressure,
psig
S
T
= Stress value at test temperature,
psi (see ASME B31.3, Table A-1)
S = Stress value at design tempera-
ture, psi (see B31.1, Table A-1)
However, as long as the metal tem-
perature of S
T
remains below the
temperature at which the allowable
stress value for S
T
begins to dimin-
ish and the allowable stress value of
S and S
T
are equal, then S
T
and S
cancel each other leaving the simpler
Equation (2):
P P
T
= 1 5 .
(2)
Unlike initial service test-
ing, pressure variations due to
static head differences in eleva-
tion have to be accommodated in
hydrostatic testing. That means
the calculated test pressure is
the minimum pressure required
for the system. When hydrostati-
cally testing a multi-floor system,
the minimum calculated test
pressure shall be realized at the
highest point. This is not stated,
but is inferred in B31.3.
Pneumatic leak test. This test
is performed using air or a pre-
ferred inert gas. This is a rela-
tively easy test to perform simply
from a preparation and cleanup
standpoint. However, this test has
a hazardous potential because of
the stored energy in the pressur-
ized gas. And for that reason alone
it should be used very selectively.
When pneumatic testing is per-
formed, it must be done under a
strictly controlled procedure with on-
site supervision in addition to coordi-
nation with all other crafts and per-
sonnel in the test area.
The test pressure for pneumatic
leak testing under B31.3 is calculated
using Equation (3), for B31.9 it is cal-
culated using Equation (4), and for
B31.1 it is calculated using Equation
(5).
P P
T
= 1 1 .
(3)
P P
T
= 1 4 .
(4)
P P P
T
= 1 2 1 5 . . to
(5)
One misconception with pneumatic
leak testing is in its procedure, as de-
scribed in B31.3. There is a misconcep-
tion that the test pressure should be
maintained while the joints are ex-
amined. This is not correct. As B31.3
explains, pressure is increased gradu-
ally until the test pressure is reached.
At that point, the test pressure is held
until piping strains equalize through-
out the system.
After a sufficient amount of time is
allowed for piping strains to equalize,
the pressure is then reduced to the
design pressure (see Reference [3] for
a discussion of the design pressure).
While design pressure is held, all
joints are examined for leaks. It is not
required that the examination take
place while holding test pressure.
There is more to the entire proce-
dure that is not included here. Please
refer to B31.3 or B31.1 for full details
on pneumatic leak testing.
Sensitive leak test. This leak test
is performed when there is a higher-
than-normal potential for fluid leak-
age, such as for hydrogen. I also recom-
mend its use when a fluid is classified
as a Category M fluid service. B31.1
refers to this test as Mass-Spectrom-
eter and Halide Testing.
In B31.3, the process for sensitive
leak testing is as follows:
The test shall be in accordance with
the gas and bubble test method speci-
fied in the BPV Code, Section V, Article
10, or by another method demonstrated
to have equal sensitivity. Sensitivity of
the test shall be not less than 10
3
atm
.
mL/s under test conditions.
a. The test pressure shall be at least the
lesser of 105 kPa (15 psi) gage, or 25%
[of] the design pressure.
b. The pressure shall be gradually in-
creased until a gage pressure the lesser
of one-half the test pressure or 170 kPa
(25 psi) gage is attained, at which time
a preliminary check shall be made.
Then the pressure shall be gradually
increased in steps until the test pres-
sure is reached, the pressure being
held long enough at each step to equal-
ize piping strains.
In testing fluid services that are
extremely difficult to seal against, or
fluid services classified as a Category
M fluid service, I would suggest the
following in preparation for the pro-
cess described under B31.3:
Prior to performing the sensitive
leak test, perform a low-pressure
test (15 psig) with air or an inert gas
using the bubble test method. Check
every mechanical joint for leakage
After completing the preliminary
low-pressure pneumatic test, purge
all of the gas from the system using
helium. Once the system is thor-
oughly purged, and contains no less
than 98% He, continue using He to
perform the sensitive leak test with
a mass spectrometer tuned to He.
Helium is the trace gas used in this
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008 49
Piping for Process Plants Part 6:
Testing & Verification
17_CHE_061508_EP_GSO.indd 49 5/22/08 2:49:25 PM
process and has a size that is close to
that of the hydrogen molecule; this
makes it nearly as difficult to seal
against as H
2
without the volatility.
Test each mechanical joint using the
mass spectrometer to determine leak
rate, if any.
Alternative leak test. In lieu of per-
forming an actual leak test, in which
internal pressure is used, the alterna-
tive leak test takes the examination
and flexibility analysis approach.
This test is conducted only when it
is determined that either hydrostatic
or pneumatic testing would be det-
rimental to the piping system or the
fluid intended for the piping system,
an inherent risk to personnel, or im-
practical to achieve.
As an alternative to testing with
internal pressure, it is acceptable to
qualify a system through examination
and flexibility analysis. The process
calls for the examination of all groove
welds, and includes longitudinal welds
used in the manufacture of pipe and
fittings that have not been previously
tested hydrostatically or pneumati-
cally. It requires a 100% radiograph or
ultrasonic examination of those welds.
Where applicable, the sensitive leak
test shall be used on any untested me-
chanical joints. This alternative leak
test also requires a flexibility analysis
as applicable.
Very briefly, a flexibility analysis
verifies, on a theoretical basis, that an
installed piping system is within the
allowable stress range of the material
and components under design con-
ditions if a system: (a) duplicates or
replaces without significant change,
a system operating with a successful
service record; (b) can be judged ad-
equate by comparison with previously
analyzed systems; and (c) is of uni-
form size, has no more than two points
of fixation, no intermediate restraints,
and falls within the limitations of em-
pirical Equation (6).
(6)
D y
L U
K
( )
2 1
where
D = Outer dia. of pipe, in. (or mm)
y = Resultant of total displacement
strains to be absorbed by piping
system, in. (or mm)
L = Developed length of piping be-
tween anchors, in. (or mm)
U = Anchor distance, straight line
between anchors, ft (or m)
K
1
= 208,000 S
A
/E
a
, (mm/m)
2
= 30 S
A
/E
a
, (in./ft)
2
S
A
= Allowable displacement stress
range per Equation (1a) of
ASME B31.3, ksi (MPa)
E
a
= Reference modulus of elasticity
at 70F (21C), ksi (MPa)
One example in which an alternative
leak test might be used is in making
a branch tie-in to an existing, in-ser-
vice line using a saddle with an o-let
branch fitting with a weld-neck flange
welded to that, and a valve mounted
to the flange. Within temperature
limitations, the fillet weld used to
weld the saddle to the existing pipe
can be examined using the dye pen-
etrant or magnetic particle method.
The circumferential butt or groove
weld used in welding the weld neck
and the o-let fitting together should
be radiographically or ultrasonically
examined. And the flange joint con-
necting the valve should have the
torque of each bolt checked after visu-
ally ensuring correct type and place-
ment of the gasket.
There are circumstances, regarding
the tie-in scenario we just discussed
for alternative leak testing, in which
a hydrostatic or pneumatic test can
be used. It depends on what the fluid
service is in the existing pipeline. If
it is a fluid service that can be con-
sidered a Category D, then it is quite
possible that a hydrostatic or pneu-
matic leak test can be performed on
the described tie-in.
By capping the valve with a blind
flange modified to include a test rig of
valves, nipples and hose connectors,
you can perform a leak test rather
than an alternative leak test. As men-
tioned, this does depend on the exist-
ing service fluid. If the existing fluid
service is steam or a cryogenic fluid,
then you might want to consider the
alternative leak test.
More on documentation
As seen in Equations (15), the leak
test pressure, except for initial service
testing, is based on design pressure
and design temperature, both of which
are described in Reference [3]. A few
general procedures for cleaning and
testing are presented below.
As in all other project functions,
control and documentation is a key
element in the cleaning and testing
of piping systems. It does, however,
need to be handled in a manner that
is dictated by the type of project.
That means you dont want to bury
yourself in unwarranted paperwork
and place an unnecessary burden on
the contractor.
Building a commercial or institu-
tional type facility will not require
the same level of documentation and
stringent controls that an industrial
type facility would require. But even
within the industrial sector there are
varying degrees of required testing
and documentation.
To begin with, documentation re-
quirements in industry standards are
simplistic and somewhat generalized,
as is apparent in ASME B31.3, which
states in Para. 345.2.7:
Records shall be made of each piping
system during the testing, including:
(a) Date of test
(b) Identification of piping system
tested
(c) Test fluid
(d) Test pressure
(e) Certification of results by examiner
These records need not be retained after
completion of the test if a certification
by the inspector that the piping has
satisfactorily passed pressure testing
as required by this Code is retained.
ASME B31.3 goes on to state, in
Para. 346.3:
Unless otherwise specified by the
engineering design, the following re-
cords shall be retained for at least 5
years after the record is generated for
the project:
(a) Examination procedures; and
(b) Examination personnel qualifica-
tions
Standards that cover such a broad
array of industrial manufacturing, do
not, as a rule, attempt to get too spe-
cific in some of their requirements. Be-
yond the essential requirements, such
as those indicated above, the owner,
engineer or contractor has to assume
responsibility and know-how for pro-
viding more specific and proprietary
requirements for a particular project
specific to the particular needs of the
Engineering Practice
50 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008
17_CHE_061508_EP_GSO.indd 50 5/22/08 2:50:16 PM
owner. The following will help, to some
extent, fill that gap.
Which fluid service category?
While Category-D fluid services
qualify for initial service leak testing,
there are caveats that should be con-
sidered. This is a situation in which
ASME provides some flexibility in
testing by lowering the bar on require-
ments where there is reduced risk in
failure, provided that if failure should
occur, the results would not cause
catastrophic damage to property or ir-
reparable harm to personnel.
The owners responsibility for any
fluid service selected for initial ser-
vice leak testing lies in determining
what fluid services to place into each
of the fluid service categories: Nor-
mal, Category D, Category M, and
High Pressure.
Acids, caustics, volatile chemicals
and petroleum products are usually
easy to identify as those not quali-
fying as a Category-D fluid service.
Cooling tower water, chilled water, air
and nitrogen are all easy to identify
as qualifyiers for Category-D fluid
services. The fluid services that fall
within the acceptable Category D
guidelines, but still have the poten-
tial for being hazardous to personnel
are not so straight forward.
Consider water as an example. At
ambient conditions, water will sim-
ply make you wet if you get dripped
or sprayed on. By OSHA standards,
once the temperature of water exceeds
140F (60C), it starts to become det-
rimental to personnel upon contact. At
this point, the range of human toler-
ance becomes a factor. However, as the
temperature continues to elevate, it
eventually moves into a range that be-
comes scalding upon human contact.
Human tolerance is no longer a factor
because the water has become hazard-
ous and the decision is made for you.
Before continuing, a point of clari-
fication. The 140F temperature men-
tioned above is with respect to sim-
ply coming in contact with an object
at that temperature. Brief contact at
that temperature would not be detri-
mental. In various litigation related
to scalding it has been determined
that an approximate one-second ex-
posure to 160F water will result in
third degree burns. An approximate
half-minute exposure to 130F water
will result in third degree burns. And
an approximate ten minute exposure
to 120F water can result in third-
degree burns.
With the maximum temperature
limit of 366F (185.5C) for Category-
D fluid services, what the owner
needs to consider are three factors: (1)
within that range of 140F (60C), the
temperature at which discomfort be-
gins to set in, to 366F (185.5C), the
upper limit of Category-D fluids, what
do we consider hazardous; (2) what is
the level of opportunity for risk to per-
sonnel; and (3) what is the level of as-
sured integrity of the installation
Assured integrity means that, if
there are procedures and protocols in
place that require, validate and docu-
ment third-party inspection of all pipe
fabrication, installation and testing,
then there is a high degree of assured
integrity in the system. If some or all
of these requirements are not in place
then there is no assured integrity.
All three of these factors tem-
perature, risk of contact and assured
integrity have to be considered to-
gether to arrive at a reasonable deter-
mination for borderline Category-D
fluid services. If, for instance, a fluid
service is hot enough to be considered
hazardous, but is in an area of a fa-
cility that sees very little personnel
activity, then the fluid service could
still be considered as a Category-D
fluid service.
One factor I have not included here
is the degree of relative importance of
a fluid service. If a system failed, how
big of a disruption would it cause in
plant operation, and how does that
factor into this process?
For example, if a safety shower
water system has to be shut down for
leak repair, the downtime to make the
repairs has little impact on plant oper-
ations. This system would therefore be
of relatively low importance and not a
factor in this evaluation process.
If, on the other hand, a chilled water
system has to be shut down for leak re-
pair to a main header, this could have
a significant impact to operations and
production. This could translate into
lost production and could be consid-
ered a high degree of importance.
You could also extend this logic a bit
further by assigning normal fluid-ser-
vice status to the primary headers of
a chilled water system and assigning
Category D status to the secondary
distribution branches, then leak test
accordingly. You need to be cautious in
considering this. By applying different
category significance to the same pip-
ing system it could cause more confu-
sion than it is worth. In other words
it may be more value added to simply
default to the more conservative cat-
egory of normal.
Once it has been established that
there is a high assured integrity value
for these piping systems, there are two
remaining factors to be considered.
First, within the temperature range
indicated above, at what temperature
should a fluid be considered hazard-
ous? Second, how probable is it that
personnel could be in the vicinity of a
leak, should one occur?
For this discussion, let us deter-
mine that any fluid at 160F (71C)
and above is hazardous upon contact
with human skin. If the fluid you are
considering is within this tempera-
ture range, then it has the potential
of being considered a normal fluid, as
defined in B31.3, pending its location
as listed in Table 1.
For example, if you have a fluid that
is operating at 195F (90.6C), it would
be considered hazardous in this evalu-
ation. But, if the system is located in
a Group 5 area (Table 1) it could still
qualify as a Category D fluid service.
Leak test examples
After the above exercise in evaluating
a fluid service, we can now continue
with a few examples of leak test pro-
cedures. Using the designations given
in Table 2, these leak test procedures
will be categorized as follows:
Testing Category T-1.
T-1.1 This category covers liquid
piping systems categorized by ASME
B31.3 as Category-D fluid service and
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008 51
TABLE 1. AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR CATEGORY D
Group Description Yes No
1 Personnel occupied space
2 Corridor frequented by personnel
3 Sensitive equipment (MCC, control room, and so on)
4 Corridor infrequently used by personnel
5 Maintenance & operations personnel only access
17_CHE_061508_EP_GSO.indd 51 5/22/08 2:51:36 PM
will require initial service leak test-
ing only.
1. If the system is not placed into ser-
vice or tested immediately after
flushing and cleaning, and has set
idle for an unspecified period of
time, it shall require a preliminary
pneumatic test at the discretion of
the owner. In doing so, air shall be
supplied to the system to a pressure
of 10 psig and held there for 15 min
to ensure that joints and compo-
nents have not been tampered with,
and that the system is still intact.
After this preliminary pressure
check, proceed.
2. After completion of the flushing and
cleaning process, connect the sys-
tem, if not already connected, to its
permanent supply source and to all
of its terminal points. Open the block
valve at the supply line and gradu-
ally feed the liquid into the system.
3. Start and stop the fill process to
allow proper high-point venting to
be accomplished. Hold pressure to
its minimum until the system is
completely filled and vented.
4. Once it is determined that the sys-
tem has been filled and vented prop-
erly, gradually increase pressure
until 50% of operating pressure is
reached. Hold that pressure for ap-
proximately two minutes to allow
piping strains to equalize. Continue
to supply the system gradually until
full operating pressure is achieved.
5. During the process of filling the sys-
tem, check all joints for leaks. Should
leaks be found at any time during
this process, drain the system, re-
pair leak(s) and begin again with
Step 1. (Caveat: Should the leak be
no more than a drip every minute or
two on average at a flange joint, it
could require simply checking the
torque on the bolts without draining
the entire system. If someone forgot
to fully tighten the bolts, then do so
now. If it happens to be a threaded
joint you may still need to drain the
system, disassemble the joint, clean
the threads, add new sealant and re-
connect the joint before continuing.)
6. Record test results and fill in all re-
quired fields on the leak test form.
T-1.2. This category covers pneu-
matic piping systems categorized by
ASME B31.3 as Category-D fluid ser-
vice and will require initial service
leak testing.
1. After completion of the blow-down
process, the system shall be connected
to its permanent supply source, if not
already done so, and to all of its ter-
minal points. Open the block valve
at the supply line and gradually feed
the gas into the system.
2. Increase the pressure to a point
equal to the lesser of one-half the
operating pressure or 25 psig. Make
a preliminary check of all joints by
sound or bubble test. If leaks are
found, release pressure, repair
leak(s) and begin again with Step 1.
If no leaks are identified, continue
to Step 3.
3. Continue to increase pressure in 25
psi increments, holding that pres-
sure momentarily (approximately
2 min) after each increase to allow
piping strains to equalize, until the
operating pressure is reached.
4. Check for leaks by sound or bubble
test, or both. If leaks are found, re-
lease pressure, repair leak(s) and
begin again with Step 2. If no leaks
are found, the system is ready for
service.
5. Record test results and fill in all re-
quired fields on the leak test form.
Category T-3.1 Hydrostatic Leak
Test. T-3.1. This category covers
liquid piping systems categorized by
ASME B31.3 as normal fluid service.
1. If the system is not placed into ser-
vice or tested immediately after
flushing and cleaning, and has set
idle for an unspecified period of
time, it shall require a preliminary
pneumatic test at the discretion of
the owner. In doing so, air shall be
supplied to the system to a pressure
of 10 psig and held there for 15 min-
utes to ensure that joints and com-
ponents have not been tampered
with, and that the system is still in-
tact. After this preliminary pressure
check, proceed.
2. After completion of the flushing and
cleaning process, with the flush/test
manifold still in place and the tem-
porary potable water supply still
connected (reconnect if necessary),
open the block valve at the supply
line and complete filling the system
with potable water.
3. Start and stop the fill process to
allow proper high-point venting to
be accomplished. Hold pressure to
its minimum until the system is
completely filled and vented.
4. Once it is determined that the sys-
tem has been filled and vented
properly, gradually increase pres-
sure until 50% of the test pressure
is reached. Hold that pressure for
approximately two minutes to allow
piping strains to equalize. Continue
to supply the system gradually until
test pressure is achieved.
5. During the process of filling the sys-
tem and increasing pressure to 50%
of the test pressure, check all joints
for leaks. Should any leaks be found,
drain system, repair leak(s) and
begin again with Step 1.
6. Once the test pressure has been
achieved, hold it for a minimum of
30 min or until all joints have been
checked for leaks. This includes valve
and equipment seals and packing.
7. If leaks are found, evacuate system
as required, repair and repeat from
Step 2. If no leaks are found, evacu-
ate system and replace all items
temporarily removed.
8. Record all data and activities on
leak test forms.
The three examples above should
provide an idea as to the kind of guide-
line that needs to be created in provid-
ing direction to the contractor respon-
sible for the work.
Preparation
For leak testing to be successful on
your project, careful preparation is
key. This preparation starts with
gathering information on test pres-
sures, test fluids, and the types of
tests that will be required. The most
convenient place for this information
to reside is the piping line list or pip-
ing system list.
A piping line list and piping system
list achieve the same purpose, only to
different degrees of detail. On some
projects, it may be more practical to
compile the information by entire
service fluid systems. Other projects
may require a more detailed approach
Engineering Practice
52 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008
TABLE 2. GENERAL LEAK TESTING
SCENARIOS
Category Description
T-1 Initial service leak test
T-2 Hydrostatic leak test
T-3 Pneumatic leak test
T-4 Sensitive leak test
T-5 Alternative leak test
17_CHE_061508_EP_GSO.indd 52 5/22/08 2:52:13 PM
by listing each to and from line along
with the particular data for each line.
The line list itself is an excellent
control document that might include
the following for each line item:
1. Line size
2. Fluid
3. Nominal material of construction
4. Pipe specification
5. Insulation specification
6. P&ID
7. Line sequence number
8. From and to information
9. Pipe code
10. Fluid service category
11. Heat tracing
12. Operating pressure
13. Design pressure
14. Operating temperature
15. Design temperature
16. Type of cleaning
17. Test pressure
18. Test fluid
19. Type of test
Developing this type of information on a
single form provides everyone involved
with the basic information needed for
each line. Having access to this line-by-
line information in such a concise, well-
organized manner reduces guess-work
and errors during testing.
Test results, documented on the test
data forms, will be maintained under
separate cover. Together, the line list
provides the required information on
each line or system, and the test-data
forms provide signed verification of
the actual test data of the test circuits
that make up each line or system.
VALIDATION
The process of validation has been
around for longer than the 40 plus
years the author has been in this
business. You may know it by its less
formal namesakes walk-down and
checkout. Compared to validation,
walk-down and checkout procedures
are not nearly as complex, stringent,
or all inclusive.
Validation is actually a subset ac-
tivity under the umbrella of commis-
sioning and qualification (C&Q). It is
derived from the need to authenticate
and document specifically defined re-
quirements for a project and stems in-
directly from, and in response to, the
Code of Federal Regulation 29CFR
Titles 210 and 211 current Good Man-
ufacturing Practice (cGMP) and U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
requirements. These CFR Titles and
FDA requirements drove the need to
demonstrate or prove compliance.
These requirements can cover
everything from verification of ex-
amination and inspection, documen-
tation of materials used, software
functionality and repeatability to
welder qualification, welding ma-
chine qualification, and so on.
The cGMP requirements under
29CFR Titles 210 and 211 are a
vague predecessor of what valida-
tion has become, and continues to
become. From these basic govern-
mental outlines, companies, and the
pharmaceutical industry as a whole,
have increasingly provided improved
interpretation of these guidelines to
meet many industry-imposed, as well
as self-imposed requirements.
To a lesser extent, industrial proj-
ects outside the pharmaceutical, food
and beverage, and semi-conductor
industries, industries not prone to
require such in-depth scrutiny, could
benefit from adopting some of the es-
sential elements of validation, such
as: material verification, leak-test re-
cords, welder and welding operator-
qualification records, and so on.
At face value this exercise would pro-
vide an assurance that the fabricating
and installing contractor is fulfilling its
contractual obligation. The added ben-
efit is that, in knowing that this degree
of scrutiny will take place, the contrac-
tor will take extra measures to mini-
mize the possibility of any rejects.
This is not to imply that all con-
tractors are out to get by with as
little as they can. Just the opposite is
actually true. Most contractors quali-
fied to perform at this level of work
are in it to perform well and to meet
their obligations. Most will already
have their own verification proce-
dure in place.
The bottom line is that the owner
is still responsible for the end result.
No one wants to head for the litiga-
tion table at the end of a project. And
the best way to avoid that is for the
owner to be proactive in developing
its requirements prior to initiating
a project. This allows the specifica-
tion writers and reviewers the benefit
of having time to consider just what
those requirements are and how they
should be defined without the time
pressures imposed when this activity
is project driven.
Performing this kind of activity
while in the heat of a project sched-
ule tends to force quick agreement to
specifications and requirements writ-
ten by parties other than those with
the owners best interest at heart.
Validating a piping system to ensure
compliance and acceptability is always
beneficial and money well spent.
FINAL REMARKS
Before concluding this series of ar-
ticles, there are just a couple of final
points to be made.
Evolving standards
We have previously discussed industry
standards and how they are selected
and applied on a project [4]. What was
not covered is the fact that most proj-
ects will actually have a need to com-
ply with multiple industry standards.
In a large grassroots pharmaceuti-
cal project you may need to include
industry compliance standards for
much of the underground utility pip-
ing, ASME B31.1 for boiler external
piping (if not included with packaged
boilers), ASME B31.3 for chemical and
utility piping throughout the facility,
and ASME-BPE for any hygienic pip-
ing requirements.
These and other standards, thanks
in large part to the cooperation of the
standards developers and ANSI, work
hand-in-hand with one another by ref-
erencing each other where necessary.
These standards committees have
enough work to do within their de-
fined scope of work without inadver-
tently duplicating work done by other
standards organizations.
An integrated set of American Na-
tional Standards is the reason that,
when used appropriately, these stan-
dards can be used as needed on a proj-
ect without fear of conflict between
those standards.
One thing that should be understood
with industry standards is the fact that
they will always be in a state of flux; al-
ways changing. And this is a good thing.
These are changes that reflect updating
to a new understanding, expanded clar-
ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008 53
17_CHE_061508_EP_GSO.indd 53 5/22/08 2:52:56 PM
ification on the various sections that
make up a standard, staying abreast
of technology, and simply building the
knowledge base of the standard.
For example, two new parts are
being added to the seven parts cur-
rently existing in ASME-BPE. There
will be a Metallic Materials of Con-
struction Part (MMOC), and a Certi-
fication Part (CR). This is all part of
the ever-evolving understanding of
the needs of the industrial community
and improved clarification, through
discussion and debate on content.
Conclusion
This series of articles attempted to
cover a wide range of topics on in-
dustrial piping in order to provide a
basic broad understanding of some
key points, without going into great
detail on any specific topic. It is hoped
that the readers of this series will dig
deeper into this subject matter to dis-
cover and learn some of the more fi-
nite points of what was discussed in
this and previous articles. It is hoped
that this series provides enough basic
knowledge of piping for you to recog-
nize when there is more to a piping
issue than what you are being told. n
Edited by Gerald Ondrey
Acknowledgement
My deep appreciation again goes to
Earl Lamson, senior project manager
with Eli Lilly and Co., for taking the
time to review each of these articles.
His comments help make the articles
better documents than they otherwise
would have been. He obliged me by
applying the same skill, intelligence
and insight he brings to everything he
does. His comments kept me concise
and on target.
Author
W. M. (Bill) Huitt has been
involved in industrial piping
design, engineering and con-
struction since 1965. Positions
have included design engineer,
piping design instructor, proj-
ect engineer, project supervi-
sor, piping department super-
visor, engineering manager
and president of W. M. Huitt
Co. (P.O. Box 31154, St. Louis,
MO 63131-0154. Phone: 314-
966-8919; Email: wmhuitt@aol.com) a piping
consulting firm founded in 1987. His experience
covers both the engineering and construction
fields and crosses industrial lines to include
petroleum refining, chemical, petrochemical,
pharmaceutical, pulp and paper, nuclear power,
and coal gasification. He has written numerous
specifications including engineering and con-
struction guidelines to ensure that design and
construction comply with code requirements,
owner expectations and good design practices.
Bill is a member of ISPE (International Society
of Pharmaceutical Engineers), CSI (Construction
Specifications Institute) and ASME (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers). He is a con-
tributor to ASME-BPE and sits on two corporate
specification review boards.
Engineering Practice
54 ChemiCal engineering www.Che.Com June 2008
Circle 27 on p. 86 or go to adlinks.che.com/7373-27
References
1. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: The
Basics, Chem. Eng. February 2007, pp. 4247.
2. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants:
Flanges, Chem. Eng. March 2007, pp. 5661.
3. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Design
Elements, Chem. Eng. July 2007, pp. 5057.
4. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: Codes
and Fabrication, Chem. Eng. October 2007,
pp. 6876.
5. Huitt, W.H., Piping for Process Plants: In-
stallation and Cleaning, Chem. Eng. April
2008, pp. 4858.
17_CHE_061508_EP_GSO.indd 54 5/22/08 2:53:34 PM