MOP, MAOP, DP and MAWP: Understanding the Differences to Avoid Unnecessary Costs

Abstract

The ASME pressure vessel and piping codes and standards provide excellent references for code writers in international jurisdictions when developing their own national codes and for safety authorities when developing regulatory acts. The inclination to customize this effort may add unnecessary complexity that unintentionally obscures the underlying engineering principles.</jats:p> <jats:p>In developing the Canadian pipeline code, the authors use the notion of maximum operating pressure or MOP similar to the MOP found in the ASME codes for pipelines. While the ASME code definitions are explicit and articulate, the MOP defined in the Canadian code is less so and has led to inadvertent confusion by industry users. Misunderstanding of complementary terminology used in ancillary ASME standards has contributed to further complexities. The use of the term, maximum allowable operating pressure or, MAOP in the ASME pipeline codes has further reduced clarity when integrating this term into international codes and regulatory acts.</jats:p> <jats:p>This paper examines, in detail, some aspects of the Canadian pipeline code and illustrates via a representative case study some of the aforementioned difficulties that have arisen. These difficulties resulted in unnecessary derating of assets by imposing operational limits that were well below actual capacity. A clear explanation of the engineering principles underlying the provisions for codes which use a “design by rules” philosophy will help operators set appropriate limits for both static and dynamic loads that may not be apparent in the specific codes considered and will be expository for regulators and code users in general.