×
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

UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?
3

UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

(OP)
An AI is threatening to reject vessels made of SA-516 (i.e. subject to SA-20 tolerances) plate which are delivered within tolerance but thinner than the required thickness. I think I'm covered by UG-16(c), but I'm new to Sec VIII. Will someone double check my logic before I make a fool of myself?

E.g. Vessel requires 0.495 after considering pressure and corrosion. I specify SA-516 Gr 70 at 0.500in. Mill delivers 0.01in under, or 0.490in. This is less than the required thickness, but within the tolerance of 0.01in.

The way I read it, UG-16(c) applies and I can use the plate to the full design pressure for the thickness ordered.

SA-20 limits the under tolerance to 0.01in. 0.01in is less than 6% of 0.5in. So the tolerance is not more than that required for UG-16(c) to apply. Ergo, so long as the delivered plate is within spec, I can use it!

[Conversely, if my PO inexplicably loosened the under-tolerance to 0.011in, I would be SOL and the AI would be justified in rejecting the material.]

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

Technically you're correct, and I'm sure I recall an interpretation stating so but, when a fabricator designs and orders materials as you have here, with basically no room on thickness, you could be setting yourself up for a lot of grief. For instance, what are you going to do when your helper grinds off a temporary attachment and inspection shows the material is thinned out by an additional 20-30 thousands, and in multiple locations on the vessel? I think most experienced fabricators would agree that what I just described is not uncommon.
Of course there's always App 32.

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

ConstantEffort, I would have to concur with your understanding. What has worked for me in the past is to sit down with the AI and show them the clause of the code and ask them for their opinion. We never want to be wrong, eh! I'm sure they will agree and will be happy to sign off on the data form.

As weldtek has mentioned, your spec may be a little close for comfort, but hey maybe your fabrication practices are top notch and you can spec on the limit to win jobs. Well done.

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

Okay. Give it to him. Or her' take away the corrosion and you may be home free...

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

And specify required materials t. 0.490... No AI will refuse it... On the other hand if you had an AI like ours who will definitely will not sign I'd he sees no corrosion allowance to his satisfaction you may be out of luck

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

(OP)
Okay, points taken. And taking the discussion one more step...

How is cutting it this close on nominal wall vessels any different than cutting it even closer on mill run minimum wall vessels?

In my short time in vessels, I've seen several such vessels. In my piping experience, min wall pipe was common, even in piping requiring an ASME stamp from an AI.

All this is from the point of view of a specifying engineer. I've not been with the actual fabricator seeking the stamp.

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

Good luck

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

ConstantEffort,
I guess not much, but over the years I've seen several situations where designing too close resulted in issues for the shop. In one case on a very heavy wall vessel, just rolling it on turning rolls deformed a local section on the shell thinning it just enough to cause a problem. Why go there?
BTW, should you need the info for your A.I., there's at least two interpretations on this subject. VIII-1-86-67 and VIII-1-04-92.

RE: UG-16(c) not good enough for AI?

To echo weldtek, some extra steel is often cheap insurance, both against actual physical problems and paperwork snarls, which can often be more diffcult to correct :)

Regards,

Mike

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