<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>        <rss version="2.0"
             xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
             xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
             xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
             xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
             xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
             xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <channel>
            <title>
									Codes &amp; Standards - Community				            </title>
            <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/</link>
            <description>PipingDesigners.com Discussion Board</description>
            <language>en-GB</language>
            <lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2026 01:54:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
            <generator>wpForo</generator>
            <ttl>60</ttl>
							                    <item>
                        <title>pump pad sizing</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/pump-pad-sizing/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[I&#039;m getting a lot of resistance in my effort to standardize some rules for pump pad sizing. Jim, I know that in the old days Fluor had(and still might) some rules of thumb for sizing pads ba...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[I'm getting a lot of resistance in my effort to standardize some rules for pump pad sizing. Jim, I know that in the old days Fluor had(and still might) some rules of thumb for sizing pads based on preliminary pump info. I would like to standardize a height 9", and a footprint- 1" past the edge of pump base or 4" past the bolt holes, whichever is greater. I should be clear, this is a company standard. I didn't want you to think I was pushing any kind of industry standard. I'd really appreciate input on this issue.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>RAY BUCKNER</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/pump-pad-sizing/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Reducer description on P&amp;ID</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/reducer-description-on-pid/</link>
                        <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:19:54 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve been doing this for a minute or so but we have a young man who has risen to a position of management and always has a new way of doing things, never the same but always new.

Reducer ...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[I've been doing this for a minute or so but we have a young man who has risen to a position of management and always has a new way of doing things, never the same but always new.

Reducer call outs should be shows as; industry (accepted) standard, the way this company has always done it, or my favorite - "because I said so"?

Large X Small?
Direction of flow?

Starting in O&amp;G it was taught to me as LGxSm, regardless of flow. That carried over to Acid &amp; Chemicals but the last few years in Mining it's never the same way 2x.

PSV's were the only exception being SmXLg.

Does it really matter, probably not but I'm sick of doing it 2-3x.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>Jayson Murdock</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/reducer-description-on-pid/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Fluid Codes System Codes Mechanical Abbreviation</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/fluid-codes-system-codes-mechanical-abbreviation/</link>
                        <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hi there,em
I&#039;m putting a std. documentation for our company and wondering if any one can lead me to a code or reference regarding system codes, fluid codes and abbreviation. I&#039;ve encounter...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi there,em
I'm putting a std. documentation for our company and wondering if any one can lead me to a code or reference regarding system codes, fluid codes and abbreviation. I've encountered the KKS System for system codes but to complicated for us.  We want the basic reference if there are.  Thanks for your help in advance.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>Lorenzo Cadavona</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/fluid-codes-system-codes-mechanical-abbreviation/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Lug Type Butterfly Valves</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/lug-type-butterfly-valves/</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Good Day Everyone,

My current project i&#039;m working on only specify that stud bolt to be used for all flange connection.
No machine bolt or cap screw is allowed.
Now for the case of lug t...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Good Day Everyone,

My current project i'm working on only specify that stud bolt to be used for all flange connection.
No machine bolt or cap screw is allowed.
Now for the case of lug type butterfly valves, as per API 609, the default design is the lug shall be tapped hole (unless specified otherwise by the purchaser).

My understanding is, since the project only allowed stud bolt to be used, the lug holes shall be through hole in order to suit the purpose of having stud bolt.
I mean stud bolt is more appropriate to be used at through hole rather than tapped hole.
The flange connection will be controlled by the strength of the stud bolt if used at through hole compared to if stud bolt is used at threaded tapped hole, where the connection is controlled by the threads of the bolt and threaded tapped hole.

Can i say that even though it is possible to use stud bolt at tapped hole, but as a good engineering practice, stud bolt shall be used at through hole.

Can anyone please verify or confirm on my understanding.

Thank you.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>shahrulizwan abdul hamid</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/lug-type-butterfly-valves/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>SPED AGBM - Keynote Speaker</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/sped-agbm-keynote-speaker/</link>
                        <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[7PM Central Standard Time Thursday, December 3, 2015
SPED (Society of Piping Engineers and Designers) Annual General Business Meeting Webcast


I have been given the honor of delivering ...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[7PM Central Standard Time Thursday, <strong>December 3, 2015</strong>
SPED (Society of Piping Engineers and Designers) Annual General Business Meeting Webcast

<a href="http://spedweb.com/">http://spedweb.com/</a>

I have been given the honor of delivering this years Keynote address at this years SPED AGBM
This years Annual General Business Meeting is being done via webcast, to facilitate those who cannot attend.

The job market for pipers will be the focus of the keynote address:

<strong>Piping Isn’t All About Oil &amp; Gas</strong>

Visit the SPED site for webcast info.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>Anton Dooley</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/sped-agbm-keynote-speaker/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Future Pipe Designer</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/future-pipe-designer-2/</link>
                        <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hi all, my name is Carlos Nieto and am interested in a career change as a pipe designer.  I have been in the pipe industry for about 5 years now as a CWI (certified welding inspector) and ju...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi all, my name is Carlos Nieto and am interested in a career change as a pipe designer.  I have been in the pipe industry for about 5 years now as a CWI (certified welding inspector) and just recently as an API-570 In-Service Pipe inspector.  I have enrolled at the local community college in a Mechanical Engineering Technology A.A.S. degree which has some drafting classes but only one pipe drafting elective.  Is this course necessary for my plans or should I just take a drafting certificate.  There is a community college that has a drafting certificate that specializes in piping but costs double the amount of my A.A.S and is not as centrally located as the one I'm enrolled in.  I figured that with the degree I would have a better chance of getting a job quicker than someone with just the certificate.]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>Carlos Nieto</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/future-pipe-designer-2/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>Dead End Platform Maximum Length</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/dead-end-platform-maximum-length/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[What is the industry good practice for the maximum length of dead end platforms. Industrial site.

Researching numerous owners and EC&#039;s, the range has been 20 ft to 26 ft.
OSHA USA states...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[What is the industry good practice for the maximum length of dead end platforms. Industrial site.

Researching numerous owners and EC's, the range has been 20 ft to 26 ft.
OSHA USA states 20 ft., U.S.Department of Health makes no mention, Alberta Building Code makes no mention.

Adding insight, the spacing between two ladders on elevated platforms shall not exceed 75 ft.
Can anyone explain why a dead end platform could not be one half of 75 feet?
Can anyone explain a principle behind the EC's choosing 20 to 26 feet?

Thanks
MNV]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>PiperMike</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/dead-end-platform-maximum-length/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>ASME B31.1 - Postweld Heat Treatment (PWHT)</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/asme-b31-1-postweld-heat-treatment-pwht/</link>
                        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:09:42 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[Hello All,

I have some issues with the ASME B31.1 PWHT requirements. 

Issue:
Table 132 contains the PWHT requirements based on material P-Nos (position) and Gr. Nos (grade). 
The P-N...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hello All,

I have some issues with the ASME B31.1 PWHT requirements. 

Issue:
Table 132 contains the PWHT requirements based on material P-Nos (position) and Gr. Nos (grade). 
The P-No is clearly defined for each material in Mandatory Appendix A. For instance A335 P22 material's P-No. is 5A.

The Gr. No. interpretation is unclear to me. 
Staying with the same example. Appendix A - A335 pipe material for P-No 5A contains two grades starting with 2 : P21 and P22. I would assume, that the two different grades are interpreted as two grade numbers.

Here comes the twist. Back to table 132. 
Table 132, P-No. 5A only mentions the requirement for <strong>Gr.No. 1</strong>. How should one understand this? Does Gr.No 1 refer to the first grade, P21?

What makes the picture more blurred is the example of material A335 P91. This material has a P-No. 5B and the only one grade of material A335 starting with 9 is P91 only. If I check again Table 132 for P-No. 5B, <strong>Gr. Nos. 1,2</strong> are mentioned. 

I attached two screenshots with the relevant sections.

If someone familiar with ASME B31.1, please help me.

Thanks.
Regards,
LSZ<div class="attachments"><div class="attachment_title">Attachments:</div><ul><li><img src="http://pipingdesigners.com/wp//wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Appendix_A-d8f.jpg" alt="Appendix_A.jpg" /></li><li><img src="http://pipingdesigners.com/wp//wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Table132-03c.jpg" alt="Table132.jpg" /></li></ul></div>]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>Laszlo Sziva</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/asme-b31-1-postweld-heat-treatment-pwht/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>In the standard BS 5422 2009, it is mentioned to provide a given thickness to control the surface temperature to a…</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/in-the-standard-bs-5422-2009-it-is-mentioned-to-provide-a-given-thickness-to-control-the-surface-temperature-to-a/</link>
                        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:41:10 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[In the standard BS 5422 2009, it is mentioned to provide a given thickness to control the surface temperature to a different range of temperature. 50 to 59°C. 
My questions is :
where do the...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[In the standard BS 5422 2009, it is mentioned to provide a given thickness to control the surface temperature to a different range of temperature. 50 to 59°C. 
My questions is :
where do these temperature come from? why not 70°C to 80°C.
I know that the burning sensation for human is 43°C appx. So is there a physiological reason for the 50 to 60°C stated in the BS.
Many thanks,
Regards,
GTE]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>gte</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/in-the-standard-bs-5422-2009-it-is-mentioned-to-provide-a-given-thickness-to-control-the-surface-temperature-to-a/</guid>
                    </item>
				                    <item>
                        <title>governing fixed stairs and platforms around process equipment. Some vendors are telling that most designers use the…</title>
                        <link>https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/governing-fixed-stairs-and-platforms-around-process-equipment-some-vendors-are-telling-that-most-designers-use-the/</link>
                        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:19:13 +0000</pubDate>
                        <description><![CDATA[It is not clear to me which standards, IBC or OSHA are governing fixed stairs and platforms around process equipment.  Some vendors are telling that most designers use the International Buil...]]></description>
                        <content:encoded><![CDATA[It is not clear to me which standards, IBC or OSHA are governing fixed stairs and platforms around process equipment.  Some vendors are telling that most designers use the International Building Code, though many texts refer to OSHA parameters.  What is the practice out there?

Bill Beazley]]></content:encoded>
						                            <category domain="https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/">Codes &amp; Standards</category>                        <dc:creator>William Beazley</dc:creator>
                        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://pipingdesigners.com/community/codes-standards/governing-fixed-stairs-and-platforms-around-process-equipment-some-vendors-are-telling-that-most-designers-use-the/</guid>
                    </item>
							        </channel>
        </rss>
		