×
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

dual certification/old design codes/material specifications

dual certification/old design codes/material specifications

dual certification/old design codes/material specifications

(OP)
I had posted this in a different forum (piping and fluid mechanics) with no replies.  I think it may be better suited in this forum?
________

A few questions for the group. Thanks for any time you may be able to spend on them.

I have a piping system that was designed and registered using ASA B31.3, with Chemico design specifications.  The service conditions are:

-10" Sch40S A358 TP304 c/w TP316 300# flanges
~25000scfm NOx
-510C
-110psig

Questions:

1. Am I obligated to replace and rebuild lines to the standard of the day, or can I use the newest ASME codes?  How might I find a copy of the codes that may have been used in 1966.

2. I am wondering how best to specify an equivelent material.  Digging into what is available, I am finding it difficult to find standard grade 304 that is not dual certified (low carbon), and am worried about thermal fatigue, creep and any other (?) high temperature failures that may occur with replacement of the dual grade.  My question is, would it be prudent to specify 304H as an alternative to add higher resistance to high temperature failures, and comply better with the original intention of the straight TP304 grade specification?  

3.  Would the A358 standard (no sub class specified) of 1966 be similar to todays Section II A358 specification?  

4. I would also like to investigate the possible change from A358 to A312 seamless designation.  I would conduct any pressure calculations required to ensure that we meet code.  Any warning bells with a switch from the original specification?  

5. The original design calls for mixing b/w 304 and 316 pipe and flanges for differing pipe diameters.  Would this have been for economical, material availabilty or other reasons of the day?  I will begin researching if 316 flanges would have higher strength at the higher temperatures to match design conditions.

Thanks for the time.

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