KANDHKOT EXPANSION PROJECT
CONSOLIDATED COMMENT RESOLUTION SHEET (MECHANICAL)
SR. NO. PPL COMMENTS [28.07.2017]
This report has never been issued for approval earlier, so it cannot be "re-issued for
1 approval". Please update as per practice being followed for other deliverables in this
project.
As this report has been prepared for Three different lines, It is useful to mention the line
2 numbers (for which the analysis has been run), along with other relevant data (i.e.,
Operating and Design conditions, Fluid density etc) in Tabular form (like Line List)
Displacements due to Flare knock out drum diameter expansion need to be included as
3 Noted. Incorporated in next revision. Please review.
well.
TYPICAL COMMENTS:
1. Many Isometric sketches are found missing in this Stress Analysis Report.
2. Isometric sketches dimensional discrepancies due to which lines have been shown as
slopped or rolled. A few examples are marked inside. Please review and avoid all
4 discrepancies.
3. Isometric sketches have not been placed in order.
4. X, Y and Z coordinate axes have not been marked on even a single isometric sketch.
As discussed with Mr. Furqan (GASCO Stress Engineer), kindly attach/include complete
isometric sketches along with proper dimensions and supports information.
Stress Analysis of this line including the connecting existing section has not been
5 Noted. Incorporated in next revision. Please review.
performed. Kindly update
This is an example of dimensional errors (18mm) which has caused this entire piping
7 Noted
section to roll. Refer Company comments on Annexure-III main page
Missing Node Number? Please review all isometrics and ensure to avoid such
9 Noted. Incorporated in next revision. Please review.
discrepancies.
From Stress report input, we understand that the limit stop gap must be 10mm instead of
3mm. Please rectify all such errors. Moreover, this 10mm gap has also not been mentioned
on Piping Isometric Drawings as received from GASCO. Limit Stop has been changed from 10 mm to 3 mm and has
10
Kindly ensure to transfer all required information to Piping Engineer for subsequent
updation of Isometric and Support Drawings. [TYPICAL COMMENT]
TYPICAL COMMENT:
Multiple arrows are pointing at different nodes, and we are unable to identify which node
number belongs to which node / support.
11
For example, the comment arrow is pointing towards a support for which no node number is
marked.
The Stress sketch must be able to clearly mention nodes and respective node numbers.
Please update.
Despite previous comments, the "g" factor values are still incorrect in the light of ITB.
It would be helpful to understand GASCO point of view about this factor if GASCO can
14 share calculations for g factor so that the same can be re-checked by Company in the light Noted. Incorporated in next revision. Please review.
of ITB.
Please update entire calculations in the light of ITb
What is meant by this element? No such element has been shown on Stress Sketch
attached with this report. It seems that stress sketch has been manually modified to delete
unwanted elements which are actually present in CAESAR-II model.
This manual intervention (other than for drafting/annotation) shall not produce reliable
16
results, and are unacceptable.
Please review the entire model and avoid similar discrepancies.
TYPICAL COMMENT
Only a few examples are indicated here. GASCO has not considered friction factor on
several supports.
17
It is the responsibility of GASCO to ensure that such measures (as taken by GASCO) shall
not produce compromising results, and shall not result in un-safe design. Please confirm.
GASCO Response (31.07-2017)
Noted.
Noted. Incorporated in next revision. Please review.
Noted. Incorporated in next revision. Please review.
been communicated to piping and civil disciplines.
Noted. Incorporated in next revision. Please review.
Node No. 1705 was a modelling error and has been removed.
Noted. Further, please note that there is software limitation due As already commented before, it is the responsibility of GASCO to ensure that such measures (as taken by
to which friction values at some nodes have been removed.
Piping Layouts
PPL RESPONSE (03.08.2017) GASCO Response PPL RESPONSE GASCO Response (26-08-2017) STATUS
Not updated. will be updated in IFC document Noted. Will be reviewed in IFC. Noted. OPEN
The line list (Rev-1) has not been shared with Company for review/approval.
The previous revision of line list (i.e.,Rev-D) was submitted by GASCO for Company review and approval.
The same was reviewed and comments had been submitted to GASCO almost 1.5 months back. However,
revised submission is still awaited. Noted and will be shared at earliest. The line list has not been shared with Company YET. Please See Revised Line List. OPEN
In revised stress report, line list Rev-1 has been attached by GASCO. GASCO is advised to kindly officially
submi Rev-1. Upon approved by Company, only then the list can be used with Stress Analysis report. The
same point has been expalined to Mr. Azam [GASCO Project Manager] on 31.07.2017.
Noted. - - CLOSED
Please note that the project isometric drawings have been used as Isometric sketches. This comment is about
distinguishing nodes numbers from already marked item numbers (in circles) on isometric which relate to the
MTO. Both are mentioned with same color, font, size etc. The intention is to distinguish stress information
The light black color in stress sketches cannot be differentiated in revised Report
(e.g., Node Numbers, Stopper/Guide Text etc.) from the drawing existing information so that in quick review, Stress node numbers have been marked with light black color,
(submitted by Gasco). Changing color or font size (as already advised as per prevailing
same can be identified. Different font color (e.g., RED) may be used Stress related information. The same also we take responsibility of any discrepancy between stress
practice around the globe) would be helpful. Gasco is advise to follow this practice for
CLOSED
practice is being followed around the globe for stress sketches, and for other Projects in Company with analysis model, isometrics and actual piping.
all other projects (current or future) with Company.
various Contractors/Consultants.
Please discuss on phone call in case of any confusion.
Noted. - - CLOSED
Noted. - - CLOSED
Stress Analysis Report along with C2 File has been provided to PPL for review and
approval. Representation of Stress Node Numbers does not effect any technical output
Node number on elbows can be interpolate easily from marked of the report.
This problem is still present on almost all isometrics attached with report. Nodes numbers are generally not
node numbers near elbows, further we assume that node Company comments not addressed.
marked on elbows, and node numbers are mentioned on only restraints (even on certain restraints, node
numbers are required to check displacments. GASCO confirm Furthermore, Stress Analysis is in line with Piping and GASCO holds complete OPEN
numbers are not marked). As already commented, kindly mark node numbers. This is a pre-requisite for
and take responsibility that displacments are in light of general Gasco's response to interpolate node numbers is unacceptable. responsibility in case of any discrepancy.
propoer review by Company.
engineering practice.
Please also note that Node Numbers adjacent to Elbows have been marked and
Displacements can be read from these Node Numbers.
This comment was marked on specific point, however, it was a marked as Typical comment. GASCO
resopnse on specific point is acceptable for specific comment. However, please review at all other locations Confirm Noted. CLOSED
for similar discrepancy and provide general confirmation as well.
Stress Analysis Report along with C2 File has been provided to PPL for review and
The problem is still present at the same isometric on which the comment was made. approval. Representation of Stress Node Numbers does not effect any technical output
GASCO take responsibility of any discrepancy between stress of the report.
Company comment has not been responded by Gasco. OPEN
Moreover, as it was a marked as Typical comment, please review at all other locations for similar discrepancy analysis model, isometrics and actual piping.
and provide general confirmation as well. Furthermore, Stress Analysis is in line with Piping and GASCO holds complete
responsibility in case of any discrepancy.
Noted. - - CLOSED
Noted.
Moreover, as it was a marked as Typical comment, please review at all other locations for similar discrepancy
Noted Confirmation is awaited from Gasco. Confirmed. OPEN
and provide general confirmation as well.
GASCO) shall not produce compromising results, and shall not result in un-safe design. Please confirm.
Confirm Noted. CLOSED
 Code stresses are very high, though are acceptable. It is to be noted that these very high
stresses are present when friction factors on several supports have been considered as
ZERO by GASCO.
18 Confirm. Noted. - - CLOSED
As these stresses are already very high, GASCO to confirm that this approach (with friction
factors being ZERO as set by GASCO) shall not have any adverse effects on actual stress
in reality (where there would be friction). Please confirm

COMMENTS ON REVISED REPORT (REV-1C) - These comments were not applicable

on earlier revisions of reports, so were not marked. These comments have been
marked now due to the changes made by GASCO in Rev-1C.

In revised report, it has been observed that "Force and Moments" section does not include 4000N force. This
force was present at Two Nodes (i.e., @Node 2685 and @Node 3050) in last revision (Rev-1B) of this report
at pg. 102/643.
It was modelling error and removed in new file and share in next
- - submittal. It is mistakenly applied two forces at same point. Therefore Noted. CLOSED
1) Kindly explain. PPL will not notice any such forces applied on other compresor in report.

2) Please ensure that all required forces or forces components have been applied and considered for
analysis. Please confirm.

In revised report, the code stresses have been increased upto the 99.2% of the allowable stresses (as per pg.
259/793). These were 95% in last report.

Code stresses are very high, though are acceptable. It is to be noted that these very high stresses are present
- - when friction factors on several supports have been considered as ZERO by GASCO. Confirm Noted. CLOSED

As these stresses are already very high, GASCO to confirm that this approach (with friction factors being
ZERO as set by GASCO) shall not have any adverse effects on actual stress in reality (where there would be
friction). Please confirm

In revised report, the "Restraint Summary Extended Report" has not been provided. Upon Company
requirement (as advised to GASCO Stress Engineer), this report was provided both earlier revisions by
- - Noted and rectified in revised submittal. Noted. CLOSED
GASCO (in Rev-1A as well as in Rev-1B). However, the revised report (Rev-1C) contains "Restraint Extended
Report". Please provide.