Interpretation Response #PI-82-0103

Interpretation Response Details

AMF
Tuboscope, Inc.
P.O. Box 808
Houston, Texas 77001

March 30, 1982

Mr. Mel Judah
Associate Director of Pipeline Safety Regulations
Material Transportation B
400 7th Street Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Judah:
AMF Tuboscope, Inc. is marketing a mechanical interference fit connection for joining pipelines. The major uses of such a connection are for laying water and CO2 flood lines, gathering systems, disposal systems, and transmission lines.
We have had a number of questions from pipeline companies relative to our compliance with D.O.T. regulations. In attempting to answer such questions, we have been in contact with the D.O.T. office here in Houston. We were informed we would probably fall under Title 49, Subpart F - Joining  of Materials Other Than by Welding, Section 192.271 - Scope and Section 192.273 - General.
We were also told we would need an interpretation from your office as to our compliance with the above referenced section. Based on that I am enclosing a copy of the report prepared by an independent testing laboratory on our mechanical interference fit connection. The report covers the testing procedures on seamless and EPW pipe joined by the mechanical connection. The results of tensil testing to failure, hydrostatic testing to failure, and hardness testing are outlined in the report.
As a result of our meeting with the local office, it appears that the connection is in compliance with section 192.271 and 192.273. We are therefore respectfully requesting your confirmation of our findings.
Should you have any questions or desire further data, we will be glad to respond.

Sincerely,

Stanley P. Haydel
Special Sales Representative
Crimp-Kote Services

PI-82-0103

May 12, 1982

Mr. Stanley P. Haydel
AMP Tuboscope, Inc.
P. O. Box 808
Houston, Texas 77001
Dear Mr. Haydel:
Your letter of March 30, 1982, asks us to confirm on the basis of a laboratory test report from Anderson & Associates, Inc., that a particular means of mechanically joining lengths of steel pipe meets the requirements of 49 CPR 192.271 and 192.273.
The report shows the results of destructive tests run on API 5L Grade B pipe material. In each of the eight specimens tested, tensile and pressure strength values exceeded the 30,000 p.s.i. minimum yield strength of the material. These tests plus the hardness values demonstrate the capability of the connection to produce a joint that is stronger than the design strength of the pipe tested. Thus, the connection appears capable of producing a joint that can withstand expansion and contraction forces and external and internal loading mentioned in §192.273(a), and that is gastight as required by §192.273(b). However, actual compliance with §192.273 would depend on proper installation of the con-nection by a pipeline operator under field conditions, a matter which we can not judge based on the test report alone.
Let me add that our confirmation is not necessary for you to market the connection. Indeed, Part 192 is intentionally self-effectuating to avoid governmental approvals, and it is our policy not to endorse proprietary methods that meet the applicable requirements of Part 192.

Sincerely,

Melvin A. Judah
Acting Associate Director for
Pipeline Safety Regulation
Materials Transportation Bureau

Regulation Sections