- Available Formats
- Options
- Availability
- Priced From ( in USD )
- Secure PDF
- ?
- Immediate download
- $206.00
- Printed Edition
-
- Ships in 1-2 business days
- $206.00
- Printed Edition + PDF
-
- Immediate download
- $350.00
- API Spec 7K Specification for Drilling and Well Servicing Equipment, Fifth Edition, Includes Errata (2010) Edition: 5th.
- Drilling and Well Servicing Equipment API SPECIFICATION 7K FIFTH EDITION, JUNE 2010 EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2010. API SPECIFICATION 7K FIFTH EDITION, JUNE 2010.
Customers Who Bought This Also Bought
- API Spec 7F (R2016)
Priced From $104.00 - API RP 7HU1 (R2014)
Priced From $59.00
API SPEC 7K 6th Edition, October 2017. DRILLING AND WELL SERVICING EQUIPMENT. View Full Details and Buy. API SPEC 8C 5th Edition, May 2014.
![Api Api](https://www.standardsdoc.org/images/goodsnewpic/API%20RP%201110-2007.jpg)
![Api Spec 7k 5th Edition Api Spec 7k 5th Edition](https://www.standardsdoc.org/images/goodsnewpic/API%20STD%20618-2010.jpg)
About This Item
Full Description
This specification provides general principles and specifies requirements for design, manufacture, and testing of new drilling and well-servicing equipment and of replacement primary load-carrying components manufactured subsequent to the publication of this specification.This specification is applicable to the following equipment:
a) rotary tables;
b) rotary bushings;
c) high-pressure mud and cement hoses;
d) piston mud-pump components;
e) drawworks components;
f) manual tongs;
g) safety clamps not used as hoisting devices;
h) blowout preventer (BOP) handling systems;
i) pressure-relieving devices for high-pressure drilling fluid circulating systems;
j) snub-lines for manual and power tongs;
k) rotary slips, both manual and powered;
l) slip bowls; and
m) spiders, both manual and powered.
a) rotary tables;
b) rotary bushings;
c) high-pressure mud and cement hoses;
d) piston mud-pump components;
e) drawworks components;
f) manual tongs;
g) safety clamps not used as hoisting devices;
h) blowout preventer (BOP) handling systems;
i) pressure-relieving devices for high-pressure drilling fluid circulating systems;
j) snub-lines for manual and power tongs;
k) rotary slips, both manual and powered;
l) slip bowls; and
m) spiders, both manual and powered.
Api Spec 7k
Document History
Amendments, rulings, supplements, and errata
Browse related products from American Petroleum Institute
Api Specification 7k
- American Petroleum Institute >Exploration and Production >Series 7: Drilling Equipment
General
This recommended practice (RP) sets forth procedural recommendations as well as an engineering solution to the mismatching of a female 2-inch Figure 402, a female 2-inch Figure 602, or a female 2-inch Figure 1002 hammer union component (sub) with a male 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union component (wing nut) as described in 3.2. The procedural recommendations described in this RP should be implemented to reduce further incidents.
The engineering solution, which prevents the mating of female 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602 and/or 2-inch Figure 1002 subs with the wing nut of the 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union, applies to the manufacture of new hammer union components and should not be applied in the modification of existing hammer union components due to unknown factors caused by field wear
Objective
The objectives of this RP are as follows.
a) Raise awareness of the incompatibility of these hammer union components, whereby these components will mate improperly when threaded together; and are likely to fail explosively below the rated working pressure of the hammer union parts (male or female).
b) Describe a recommended procedural solution to the industry that will reduce the likelihood of a 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602 and/or 2-inch Figure 1002 hammer union component being made-up inadvertently to a 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union component. This procedural solution is critical because, depending on industry acceptance and implementation, the engineering solution might take years to effectively eliminate industry equipment manufactured to the original design of 2-inch Figure 402, Figure 602, and Figure 1002 hammer union components.
c) Advise users and suppliers of hammer unions to adopt those procedural recommendations that are reasonably practicable to implement.
NOTE The recommendations in this document build on advice and advisories previously communicated to the industry.
d) Describe an engineering design solution to the industry that makes impossible the mating of female 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602 and/or 2-inch Figure 1002 subs with the wing nut of the 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union.
e) Recommend users and suppliers of hammer unions implement this new engineering design on their job sites for 2-inch Figure 402, Figure 602 or Figure 1002 components. However, users should exercise caution in reintroducing 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602, and 2-inch Figure 1002 components if already banned from a company’s fleet.
This recommended practice (RP) sets forth procedural recommendations as well as an engineering solution to the mismatching of a female 2-inch Figure 402, a female 2-inch Figure 602, or a female 2-inch Figure 1002 hammer union component (sub) with a male 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union component (wing nut) as described in 3.2. The procedural recommendations described in this RP should be implemented to reduce further incidents.
The engineering solution, which prevents the mating of female 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602 and/or 2-inch Figure 1002 subs with the wing nut of the 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union, applies to the manufacture of new hammer union components and should not be applied in the modification of existing hammer union components due to unknown factors caused by field wear
Objective
The objectives of this RP are as follows.
a) Raise awareness of the incompatibility of these hammer union components, whereby these components will mate improperly when threaded together; and are likely to fail explosively below the rated working pressure of the hammer union parts (male or female).
b) Describe a recommended procedural solution to the industry that will reduce the likelihood of a 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602 and/or 2-inch Figure 1002 hammer union component being made-up inadvertently to a 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union component. This procedural solution is critical because, depending on industry acceptance and implementation, the engineering solution might take years to effectively eliminate industry equipment manufactured to the original design of 2-inch Figure 402, Figure 602, and Figure 1002 hammer union components.
c) Advise users and suppliers of hammer unions to adopt those procedural recommendations that are reasonably practicable to implement.
NOTE The recommendations in this document build on advice and advisories previously communicated to the industry.
d) Describe an engineering design solution to the industry that makes impossible the mating of female 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602 and/or 2-inch Figure 1002 subs with the wing nut of the 2-inch Figure 1502 hammer union.
e) Recommend users and suppliers of hammer unions implement this new engineering design on their job sites for 2-inch Figure 402, Figure 602 or Figure 1002 components. However, users should exercise caution in reintroducing 2-inch Figure 402, 2-inch Figure 602, and 2-inch Figure 1002 components if already banned from a company’s fleet.