Our company is EPC contractor for a crude oil transmission plant between storage tanks. Based on maximum liquid velocity limitation=2 m/s, the pipe size is 48" for the main lines from tanks to manifold.now for sizing on/off motorized ball valves, could we use reduced bore ball valve instead of full bore? Is there any especial analysis needed to find whether we could use the reduced bore ball valve, or just we should mention the bigger pressure drop in reduced bore type (which is usually not huge relative to several elbows we have in the line).In the other hand, Our client insists on using full bore ball valves. Because of big amount of difference between the prices, we have a solution: using 48"/36" reducer + 36" full bore ball valve + 36"/48" reducer instead of a reduced bore (48"/36") ball valve. So, is there any technical difference or standard prevention or practical notes applicable to this solution relative to reduced bore ball valve? If I was your client I would be questioning my decision to hire you about now. There are long-term operating reasons to avoid reduced bore ball valves and many companies have come to regret using them to cut original capital in the past. You haven't given much detail on the application, but if the line is very long there is a good chance that they'll want to smart pig it someday--that isn't happening with your pair of reducers idea.The client wants full bore valves. They have a reason for that desire. Wasn't that requirement included in their original bid documentation? I would say you are not really acting in their best interest by not honoring their requirement.

MORE NEWS