×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

(OP)
I am in a predicament and I need to hear from the experts.

 My customer insistes that there should not be drain hole in the bottom of an ell that is on the discharge piping of our PSVs. He Quotes API 510 where it states that we need either a rain cap or a drain (I don't have API 510 so I cannot confirm that for sure), since we have a rain cap his company (huge international energy Company) wants all PSV to not have a drain hole.
 
On the other hand our ASME independant code inspector (certifies all out U1As and R1s) states that by ASME VIII, I, UG-135 we need a drain on the ells on the discharge form the PSVs. I have confirmed this and there dosen't seem to be any way to misinterpret this part of the code.
 
I don't want to piss anyone off since both can affect my work in a huge way. In the oppinion of the expets on this site who is right and who is wrong, or is it not that simple???????

RE: ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

I would forget API 510 and push for the drain as per code.
The drain prevents liquid from accumulating in the discharge pipe, changing all parameters of the PSV discharge. It is not only rain it can also be liquid from the PSV weeping which they do regularly.

I am assuming that the valves fall under ASME.  

RE: ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

Fire your inspector, he's full of it.  First off I can't find anywhere where 510 states that, possibly its in API 576....

The PSV discharge should have a drain as a minimum, regardless if there is a rain hood or not.  The drain is to ensure there is no condensation, rainwater, or liquid from the valve passing from resting on the outlet of the valve.  This liquid will do two things, first it will corrode your valve, which could lead to valve malfunction, or improper pop pressure.  Secondly, if enough liquid accumulated, it would create a static pressure on the outlet of the valve, and could affect the pop pressure.

RE: ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

Oops, not your inspector, he's your customer, guess you can't fire him......

RE: ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

Can see you are in a bind. I think you need a drain to comply with the Code. Also see NBIC Appendix I.

Suggestion: You need CYA. Write a nonconformance for this job per your QC System and have the "Owner" sign it,list NBIC I-5900.

Think you may be called back for some rework before they can operate...but you are covered. After all it is thier vessel.

RE: ASME VIII, I, UG-135 vs API 510

(OP)
I brought up the issue with our customer and he disagreed at first and by the end of the conversation he said he didn't really care if there was a drain hole. So he kind of back pedaled when I told him all about the ASME code and what our inspector said. What a relief.

Thanks for the backup. I thought that ASME would be more stringent and should be followed but I needed some reassurance on my thoughts.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources