×
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

Vessel, why, when or not?
5

Vessel, why, when or not?

Vessel, why, when or not?

(OP)
Sometimes people cheat.  I have seen a few examples where it was obvious that an application was more than enlarged piece of pipe.  For reasons not clear, project or mechanical engineers did not assign an equipment number, provide relief valves, etc. calling something a run of pipe – that everyone could clearly see was a vessel.  They avoided ASME conformance.  A few examples:
a starting air (perhaps start gas) accumulator for a Diesel emergency generator
seal oil accumulators for large gas compressors
some air accumulators for control valves (blowdown, etc.)

How do they get away with it?  What rules make it a vessel?

Thanks for your input.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

"pressure containers which are integral parts or components of rotating or reciprocating mechanical devices, such as pumps, compressors, turbines, generators, engines, and hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders..." are exempted.

"pipe components, such as pipe, flanges, bolting, gaskets, valves, expansion joints, fittings, and the pressure containing parts of other components, such as strainers and devices which servce such purposes as mixing, separating, snubbing, distributing and metering or controlling flow" are exempted.

"a vessel for containing water under pressure, including those containing air the compression of which serves only as a cushion" within certain temperature/ pressure limits is exempted.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

The statements above are excerpts from the Introduction of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Div 1 (unfired pressure vessels).

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

JLSeagull,

The "cheating" people are not profesionals and those approving their work are administrators of the project. The examples you provided are classic pressure vessels, where the inlet/outlet nozzles are connected to other pressure systems. Between those inlet/outlet nozzles, the equipment is accumulating energy, which is the reason for existance of the pressure vessels code around the world. The ASME VIII code was generated to prevent the boilers and other pressure vessels killing their users. Remember, the casing of the pump must be hydrotested for pressure containment and comes with suitable rating. However, you cannot prevent people distorting the meaning of "pressure vessel" with their sight on the glitter of a copper coin.

Cheers,

gr2vessels

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

Another issue that may enter in is whether the jurisdiction in question regulates pressure vessels in the first place.  In Texas, they don't.  So even if the object is clearly a pressure vessel, it doesn't have to be ASME stamped.  (This may be kind of an indeterminate area still- seems like OSHA requires pressure vessels to be designed per ASME for workplaces.)

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

TEAM MEMBERS & JStephen (Mechanical)

Is the State of Texas going to become a Pressure Vessel by jurisdiction in 2007; because of the new OSHA requires pressure vessels to be designed per ASME for workplaces.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

2
The intention of the ASME VIII rules is to ensure that the major energy storage volume in a system is a registered vessel.

A piece of 16" pipe connecting two large pressure vessels is a pipe, despite the fact that in volumetric, diameter and pressure terms it would be considered a pressure vessel if examined in isolation.

A piece of 1" pipe connecting two large pressure vessels, with a 16" enlargement in the middle of the line, is also still a piece of pressure piping- unless it contains some other means of pressurization distinct from that of the vessels it is connected to.

A piece of 1" pipe with a 16" enlargement in it connected only to valves, pumps etc.- is a vessel, provided it meets the ASME tests and is not exempted by local regs or covered by another statute (DOT etc.)

Note that pressure piping is still designed, fabricated, NDE'd etc. in accordance with an ASME code- in the case of chemical plant piping it's ASME B31.3.  Just because it's not a registered vessel does not mean it's an unsafe assembly for the retention of pressure.  The rules are simply different, proportional to the hazard that the device represents in the larger context.  

Whether or not the system contains registered vessels, relief valves are required where they're required, and not required where the design so permits- i.e. in cases where another relief valve provides protection for two interconnected pieces of equipment not separated by unlocked valves etc.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

Quote (Jstephen):

"pipe components, such as pipe, flanges, bolting, gaskets, valves, expansion joints, fittings, and the pressure containing parts of other components, such as strainers and devices which servce such purposes as mixing, separating, snubbing, distributing and metering or controlling flow" are exempted.
This part is sometimes reffered to by folks who think that if you build what would otherwise be a vessel out of only "piping components" such as pipe and piping end caps then it is excempt. As indicated in Interpretation VIII-1-04-47, this is not true. For example, you build a small KO drum with a 24" pipe shell and end caps but it is not excempt from the scope of VIII-1 on that basis.

Quote (moltenmetal):

A piece of 16" pipe connecting two large pressure vessels is a pipe, despite the fact that in volumetric, diameter and pressure terms it would be considered a pressure vessel if examined in isolation.
Provided that the intent of the pipe is to transport fluid between the vessels and it does not serve a processing function.

Quote (moltenmetal):

A piece of 1" pipe connecting two large pressure vessels, with a 16" enlargement in the middle of the line, is also still a piece of pressure piping- unless it contains some other means of pressurization distinct from that of the vessels it is connected to.

Again, provided that the 16" portion is there only to provide a transport function and is not intended for processing. Maybe one way to look at it is if a process engineer has to do much more design than a flow calculation then the 16" portion may well be a vessel. If the process engineer is determining things like residence time, then that 16" wide spot is most likely within the scope. I do not believe that the source of pressure is material here.

jt

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

How about a "moral duty"?

The ASME writes a proven safety code. Even if I was too cheap to get the itemed stamped I would at least design to the minimum requirement.

It would be hard to live with an unnessary death on my shoulders.When I am asked why someone should follow this standard,I respond by asking if they have any children.

Of course if money is your only goal,no nameplate will open the door for lots of fine and dedicated attorneys.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

deanc;
Well said.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

To put your "moral" argument into place, you're making the presumption that a 16" diameter piece of pipe with caps on the end, connected by piping to a much larger source of stored energy and with no distinct source of pressurization, is somehow markedly less safe when designed and constructed in accordance with B31.3 than when designed and constructed in accordance with ASME VIII.

I don't agree with you.  Nor do the majority of my colleagues and customers.  I don't think we're especially immoral people!

Want to make this one a little greyer so that your judgment can be tested a little more accurately?  Let's take that pipe enlargement down from 16" to 6" sch 40.  Now the ID is just a hair greater than 6".  Is THAT a vessel, or is it piping?  What's magic about 6.000" versus 6.065".

This is an engineering judgment between two internationally recognized safety codes- it is not a "moral" issue.

As to whether the 16" "vessel" has a "processing intent"- that too is basically irrelevant to the selection of the design/fab code.  Piping and vessels have the same ultimate design requirement:  to safely contain a pressurized fluid against the loads and other factors that can be reasonably expected to be imposed by the service over a reasonable design life.  What matters is if the "processing intent" in question imposes loads, corrosion, heat, other sources of pressurization etc. that the "piping" is not designed for, in which case there is a real reason to question the code selected.  

What some folks are after is a slavish application of a set of clearly-defined perscriptive rules, such that engineering judgment never comes into it.  If that were possible, there would of course be no need for professional engineers.  That's where engineers prove their value:  in producing designs which are not only safe and prudent, but economic as well.  

It is possible for two engineers to make reasoned, defensible engineering judgments on a particular issue and to come to different conclusions.  I respect your judgment in regard to the selection of what constitutes an ASME "vessel" and what doesn't, and trust it serves your employer and your clients well.  I resent the implication that somehow my own judgment is "immoral" merely because it doesn't coincide with your own.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?



moltenmetal;
As someone who deals with ASME Codes and Standards and as a curious reader in the various fora, I don't believe deanc was trying to imply in his post that you or others are in any way taking the immoral route by trying to split hairs on which type of code, if any, is applicable. I read deanc's post as more of a general statement directed to companies run by bean counters that may not want to invest in the proper design of pressure retaining items (regardless of pipe or pressure vessel definitions).

I am of the opinion that B31 and ASME B&PV Codes are specific enough to provide the necessary requirements to assure long and safe operation of pressure retaining items.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

moltenmetal:

You missed my point. metengr explains very well what I refer to.

The Code you use is based on application and jurisdiction....but are not all Codes safety focused?

Pick the best one and use it,if there is a problem over .065",I suspect that both may be satisfactory. The line must be drawn somewhere otherwise we go in circles.

I do not know you personally so I have no idea if one would consider you "moral" or not. I guess that depends on the Code you use?????

Best regards to all.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

(OP)
I particularly liked the brief response provided by ASME Interpretation VIII-1-04-47.

Subject: Section VIII, Division 1 (2001 Edition, 2003 Addenda); U-1(c)(2)(e)
Date Issued: January 13, 2005
File: BC04-1115
Question: Is a pressure vessel intended for storage or processing of a fluid, built from piping components,
exempt from the scope of Section VIII, Division 1 per U-1(c)(2)(e), if none of the other exemptions listed
in U-1(c)(2) apply?


Reply: No.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

Sorry deanc and metengr: I'm a little touchy today.  Re-reading your post I think I took your statement far too harshly!  I do understand your points.

Choosing between design codes on an engineering basis is very different than choosing between a design code and NO design code based solely on money.  That's not something we run into.  But we DO run into people who have the ASME VIII box on their heads and can't see around it to the underlying design philosophy.  They add unnecessary cost and schedule delay that somebody has to pay for, and that annoys me.  

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

Well, in my humble opinion, the quest for ruling on what is and what is not a pressure vessel should start at the local authority. The lack of legal description of the vessel by this authority would warrant code definition to be applied. Don't forget the code is becoming law if referred to by the legislature. Otherwise, it is just an expensive guideline, that has no teath.
Isthill was pointing in this direction, too.

As to the "cheating" issue, applying pressure vessel requirements to equipment that is not legally a pressure vessel seems a bit unnecessary (and expensive). That is the reason why those engineers get paid those extremely high salaries - they have to make a call on what is safe design for a particular piece of pipe with caps.

Putting Human Factor Back in Engineering

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

VP- you might note that Texas, for example, has no vessel law- regulates boilers only.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

(OP)
http://www.acusafe.com/Newsletter/Stories/0302NewsPart6PSI.htm

Does Isthill's OSHA comment trump JStephen's no Texas law comment?  I would like to see the documentation about OSHA.  Does the attached link tie section VIII into the OSHA 1910.119 PSM regulation?  If so, why would Texas need a vessel law?

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

JStephen your comment is duly noted. I don't think JLSeagull mentioned TX in his question. I apologize if I missed something.

Putting Human Factor Back in Engineering

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

(OP)
I am in Texas.  Many but not all of my projects are in Texas.  This issue was raised by a coworker.  I don't actually know whether the plant is in Texas or not.  He asked me because I am actually read some of the many codes that apply to the Instrumentation and Control Systems business.  

However, if OSHA requires ASME section VIII design then it should not matter whether or not it is a local agency requirement. Right?

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

My point was simply that you can't start at the local authority in those cases where there isn't any local authority.  Which, with the oil industry in Texas, is a pretty sizable chunk of the market.

OSHA might also require ASME construction, but they don't routinely inspect that kind of stuff- they might cite it 20 years later if it blows up, but they're not routinely checking every vessel put in for proper paperwork and design.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

I was just doing some checking on OSHA's requirements for ASME vessels.  I find the following items requiring ASME tanks when pressurized per OSHA:
1910.103 Hydrogen containers
1910.104 Oxygen containers
1910.106 and 1926.152 Flammable and Combustible liquids
1910.107 Paint spray pots
1910.110 Liquified petroleum gas
1910.111 Anhydrous ammonia
1910.169, 1926.306, and 1915.172 New air receivers

I don't know of a whole lot that would be excluded.

RE: Vessel, why, when or not?

TEAM MEMBERS & JLSeagull (Electrical) THANK FOR THE REFERENCE

http://www.ipeia.com/default.asp?prime=Past%20Conferences&webpage=216

Below is  INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE EQUIPMENT INTEGRITY ASSOCIATION for 2007; w/ 2006, 2005 papers
 

Welcome to the IPEIA Conference website. http://www.ipeia.com/

The National Pressure Equipment Conference (NPEC), as we were formerly called, is now a registered association under the Societies Act of Alberta under the name “International Pressure Equipment Integrity Association” or IPEIA. As in past years under the NPEC banner the new IPEIA conference continues to enjoy the generous support of various jurisdictional and educational organizations as well as the pressure equipment inspection, manufacturing, and owner/user industries, many of whom are represented on the Conference Steering Committee.  

Word is certainly getting out about the IPEIA technical Conference.  There was an attendance increase of 30% in 2006 and IPEIA anticipates further increases.  We look forward to renewing friendships, new and old, and networking with colleagues in 2007.

The goal of the conference continues to be the promotion of technical improvements toward excellence in design, safe operation, and inspection of pressure vessels, piping, and equipment.

The 11th Annual IPEIA Conference will be held at the Banff Business Centre February 14 to 16, 2007. It will be one event the leaders in the Pressure Equipment Industry will be hi-lighting on their calendars!

 
Conference Week Schedule
 

Monday, February 12, 2007

 

8:00am – 4:00pm     Pre-Conference Training Session     Pressure Equipment Safety Legislation (PESL Seminar)  ABSA the pressure equipment safety authority     PDC Room 103

8:00am – 4:00pm     Pre-Conference Training Session     Piping Seminar  ABSA the pressure equipment safety authority   DCH Room 300

 

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

 

8:00am – 4:00pm     Pre-Conference Training Session     Pressure Equipment Safety Legislation (PESL Seminar)  ABSA the pressure equipment safety authority   PDC Room 103

8:00am – 4:00pm     Pre-Conference Training Session     Piping Seminar  ABSA the pressure equipment safety authority   DCH Room 300

8:30am – 5:00pm     Pre-Conference Training Session     Introduction to Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Storage and Piping Systems  Alberta Research Council   PDC Room 102

12:00pm – 6:00pm     Pre-Conference Training Session     Pressure Vessel Engineering Seminar  Stress Engineering Services, Inc.   PDC Room 104

2:00pm – 6:00pm     Pre-Conference Training Session     API Related Standards Software  The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.   TCPL Room 201

7:00pm – 9:00pm     Industry Meeting     Generating Utility Advisory Committee (GUAC)   PDC Room 102

 

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

 

8:00am – 9:00am     Technical Workshop     Confined Spaces - Hidden Hazards   Young EnergyServe  PDC Room 102  

8:00am – 10:00pm     Technical Workshop     Phased Array for Dummies   PDC Room 104

8:00am – 12:00pm     Technical Workshop     API Related Standards Software   The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.  PDC Room 103

10:00am – 11:00am     Technical Workshop     Essential Skills Power Engineers.....Practical Ways to Use Essential Skills to Improve Productivity and Safety   Bow Valley College  PDC Room 102

11:00am – 12:00pm     Technical Workshop     Long Range UT   IRISNDT Corp.  PDC Room 104

 

 

7:00am – 1:00pm    CONFERENCE REGISTRATION                                                                                                                                           

1:00pm          Opening Remarks

1:15pm    "Leading Edge Fuel Cell Technology"     Dennis Cote / Gilbert Requena  Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT)

1:55pm    "A Brittle Fracture Case Study and Root Cause Failure Analysis"     Rick Marsden  EnCana

2:35pm    "Challenges Meeting Temper Embrittlement Criteria in Pressure Vessel Fabrication"     William Newell  Euroweld                                   

3:10pm          coffee break         

3:30pm    "Remaining Life Assessment of 347H SS Fired Heater Radiant Section Coils"     Neil Simpson / Jennifer Marcy   Alberta ENVIROfuels / Acuren

4:10pm    "A Crack Like Defect Assessment for Inpsectors, a First Order Assessment of the Severity of Cracks in the Field"     Izak Roux  RAE Engineering and Inspection Ltd.

5:00pm          Exhibitor’s Appreciation Event – Max Bell & TCPL Buildings

 

Thursday, February 15, 2007

8:00am          Opening Remarks

8:15am     "Training Tomorrow's Workforce Today"     Dr. Sam Shaw  NAIT

8:55am     "NDe Training and QC"     John Reynolds  Retired from Shell Global Solutions

9:35am     "My ASME VIII Div 2 Vessels are at the End of Their Life - What Now?"     Izak Roux  RAE Engineering and Inspection Ltd.                        

10:10am          coffee break

10:30am   "Examples of FFS Assessments in Alberta"     Bob Brown / Gerrit Buchheim  Equity Engineering Group, Inc.

11:10am   "When An Accident Happens.....DON'T"     Dr. Craig Jerner  Metallurgist

11:45am          working lunch

1:30pm     "Assessment of Pressure Vessel Business Risk"     Stephen C. Hall  Aptech Engineering                  

2:10pm     "Methods for Inspection of In-Plant Buried Process Piping"     Randy Vander Voort  Acuren

2:450pm          coffee break               

3:05pm     "Ultrasonic Corrosion Surveys"     Harold Hadley  H. Hadley Consulting

3:45pm     "Deaerators: A Continuing Threat to Power Plant Safety? "     Ian Le May / Roberto Pascual  Metallurgical Consulting

5:00pm          Hospitality / Casino, Dining Room, Donald Cameron Hall

 

Friday, February 16, 2007

8:00am          Town Hall Meeting, Delegate Feedback   

8:30am     "Case Study: Boiler Feed Water Heat Exchanger Fouling"     Dave Brown / Basil El Borno  EnCana / GE Betz                                    

9:10am     "Phased Array Applications for Boiler Tubes"     John Whytock  Metalogic Inspection Services Inc.

9:45am               coffee break

10:05am    "Improving Reliability and Useful Life of Waste Heat Boilers"     Dr. Carl Jaske  CC Technologies

10:45am    "Weld Overlay Technologies for Wear and Corrosion Applications"     Matthew Yarmuch  Alberta Research Council

11:25am    "Closing Remarks"       Gordon Campbell      ABSA thre pressure equipment safety authority  

 

2006 Conference
Conference Summary

“P-91 and Beyond – New Welding Technologies”     William Newell, Euroweld, Ltd.   PRESENTATION

 

"The Effect of Emerging NDE Technology and the Plant Inspector”     Mark Koens, Petro-Canada   PRESENTATION

                                     

“The Interpretation of the NACE MR0175 / ISO 15156 Standard”     Ray Goodfellow, Pangea Solutions      PRESENTATION

 

"Pressure Relief Developments in the Next Decade”     Valerie Magyari, The Equity Engineering        Group, Inc.         PRESENTATION

 

'A Moment is all it takes to change a life forever.”     Mel Camilli, WorkSafeBC

 

"Integrity Operating Windows (IOW’s)”     John Reynolds, Shell Global Solutions US     PRESENTATION

 

“Beyond RBI in the Next Decade: Safe and Reliable Operation within Boundaries (Materials Operating Envelopes)”      Gerrit Buchheim, The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.   PRESENTATION

 

“Environmental Stress Cracking of a Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger in High Temperature Boiler Feed Water Service”    J.Moen, Dow Chemical Canada Inc. / G.Roemer, IRISNDT Corp.   PRESENTATION

 

“The API 579 Fitness For Service Standard: The current state of the technology & a ten year look ahead.”     D.Osage / B.Brown, The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.     PRESENTATION                     

 

"Managing Pressure Vessels with Known Flaws”     Ana Benz, IRISNDT Corp.     PRESENTATION

 

“Fitness For Service and Life Extension of Pressure Retaining Equipment in the Pulp and Paper Industry”      Craig Reid, Acuren   HANDOUT, PRESENTATION

 

“Issues Affecting the Short Fatigue Life of Pressure Equipment”              B Wright / C Allevato, Stress Engineering Services, Inc.    PRESENTATION

 

“Surface Engineered Coatings in Pressure Vessels”     Dale Homeniuk, Inotec Coatings and Hydraulics Inc.          PRESENTATION

 

“Industrial Rope Access”         Trevor Paananen,  RAE Engineering and Inspection Ltd.   PRESENTATION

 

“Advances in Acoustic Emission Testing for On-Stream Inspection”     Sam Ternowchek, CONAM / QSL Plus     PRESENTATION

 

“Qualificaton of Phased Arrays to ASME Section V Codes”     Michael Moles, Olympus NDT Canada     PRESENTATION                            

 

Closing Remarks     Gordon Campbell, ABSA the pressure equipment safety authority

 

Following is a list of speakers for the previous eight conferences.

Pressure Equipment Conference
Speaker History

February 9 - 11, 2005

"Open Discussion"
Dr. Ken Lau, ABSA
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Provincial Pressure Vessels Regulations"
Bill Litvinchuk, ABSA
To view this presentation, please click here.

"BCIT Boiler Explosion"
Glen Magel, British Columbia Institute of Technology
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Creep Deformations & Fracture Mechanisms of Medium Grade Carbon Steels"
Evan Vokes, University of Alberta Student
To view this presentation, please click here.

"The 99 Diseases of Pressure Equipment in the Hydrocarbon Process Industry"
John Reynolds, Shell Global Solutions US
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Flux Core Welding Procedures"
Larry A. Cowan, EFX Compression
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Automated Weld Overlay"
Paul Shaver, GE Energy Services
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Case Study: Difficult Pipe Weld Comparing AUT to RT"
Izak Roux, RAE Engineering & Inspection
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Assessing the Quality of Automated & Manual Code Drum Welds from American & Japanese Coke Drum Manufacturers Using Acoustic Emission Monitoring During Code Required Hydrotest"
Claudio Allevato, Stress Engineering Services, Inc.
To view this presentation, please click here.

"A Novel Technological Assessment for Welding Heavy Wall Stainless Steel"
Shawn Seitz, Fluor; Ken Armstrong, PCL Industrial Constructors
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Ultrasonic Inspection of Pressure Vessel Construction Welds Using Phased Arrays"
Michael Moles, R/D Tech
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Ultrasonic Phased Array"
Allan Kerr, WesDyne International
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Development of NDT Inspection Techniques for Heavy Wall Stainless Steel Piping"
Larry Bartley, Canspec Group Inc.
To view this presentation, please click here.

"Computed Radiography"
Terry Plasek, Fuji Film
To view this presentation, please click here.

L S THILL

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