Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
(OP)
I am hoping yall can offer some clarity for me. I have a U stamped pressure vessel with a manway on the bottom head that has a nozzle welded to its cover (added for contect). The nozzle is 2" too short. If we cut and weld a new nozzle onto the manway, will that require a R-stamp? There is a differing of opinion at my site. Some people say the code only extends to the manway itself and not the nozzle. I believe the nozzle is part of the manway and therefore covered by U-1(e)(3) and therefore needs an R-stamp for the repair. If it does need an R-stamp do you think it would be acceptable to use 100% x-ray instead of hydrotesting the entire vessel?
Thanks
-Dave
Thanks
-Dave





RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
Is the Nozzle listed on the Data Report? In my opinion a R Stamp is required, the question of RT instead of a hydro should be discussed with the AI.
RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
RE: Clarification to ASME Sec 8 Div 1 U-1(e)(3)
Dave, in my experience (however limited it may be), a manway connection designed as an Appendix 2 flange and cover might be fabricated in-house. But, the majority of vessel access points are purchased elliptical manway assemblies (elliptical ring, cover, gasket, yokes and hardware) or ASME B16.5 flanges with blinds.
Your post did not mention the type of manway or cover. If a hydrostatic test of the complete vessel is problematic. Perhaps the AI would allow you to build a fixture to test the cover instead of the full vessel. After all, the point would be to re-test the cover and nozzle weldment, not the entire tank.
Quote: "Sometimes, the biggest problems are caused by the smallest things. Pay Attention!" (Unknown)