49 C.F.R. § 192.161

Supports and anchors

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each pipeline and its associated equipment must have enough anchors or supports to:

(1) Prevent undue strain on connected equipment;

(2) Resist longitudinal forces caused by a bend or offset in the pipe; and

(3) Prevent or damp out excessive vibration.

(b) Each exposed pipeline must have enough supports or anchors to protect the exposed pipe joints from the maximum end force caused by internal pressure and any additional forces caused by temperature expansion or contraction or by the weight of the pipe and its contents.

(c) Each support or anchor on an exposed pipeline must be made of durable, noncombustible material and must be designed and installed as follows:

(1) Free expansion and contraction of the pipeline between supports or anchors may not be restricted.

(2) Provision must be made for the service conditions involved.

(3) Movement of the pipeline may not cause disengagement of the support equipment.

(d) Each support on an exposed pipeline operated at a stress level of 50 percent or more of SMYS must comply with the following:

(1) A structural support may not be welded directly to the pipe.

(2) The support must be provided by a member that completely encircles the pipe.

(3) If an encircling member is welded to a pipe, the weld must be continuous and cover the entire circumference.

(e) Each underground pipeline that is connected to a relatively unyielding line or other fixed object must have enough flexibility to provide for possible movement, or it must have an anchor that will limit the movement of the pipeline.

(f) Except for offshore pipelines, each underground pipeline that is being connected to new branches must have a firm foundation for both the header and the branch to prevent detrimental lateral and vertical movement.

[35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-58, 53 FR 1635, Jan. 21, 1988]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1997–1997 · leading case: Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “[4] The Downs contend that the valve maintenance portion of the trial court's summary judgment order was based on 49 CFR §§ 192.161 and 192.365(c), which Montezuma does not appeal, as well as 49 CFR § 192.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.