Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
AS3920.1
- Thread starter weldtek
- Start date
gr2vessels
Mechanical
Yes, it is acceptable to import vessels designed and built to ASME VIII. Many of the vessels designed and fabricated in Australia are using the ASME VIII.
There are additional requirements in regard of the equipment registration in various states of Australia. typically, first additional requirement is compliance with AS 1210, AS 3920, AS 4343. Depending on the level of compliance required, the design and fabrication requirements may include the use of more conservative allowable stresses, external; nozzle loads calculated in accordance with PD 5500 Annex G in lieu of WRC (more conservative allowable stress limits), the final hydrotest pressure calculated in accordance with AS 1210 in liew of UG-99 calculation. One important thing, the vessel registration must be preceded by a third party design review in Australia and the design registration. The third party certification might be an issue, because the local authority approved reviewers are making money from rejecting as many as possible times the design, including any minor or insignificant error, since each subsequent review must be paid in full as the first one. There is nothing you can do, the vessel cannot be installed and operated without that review/certification for compliance with AS 1210. Please note that AS 1210 has not been revised since 1999 and is largely based on the 1997 edition, in fact written in 1995, mostly based on the ASME VIII, with some imports from BS 5500. It's dissapointing to see this valuable standard left behind for over a decade and some opportunistic people missusing it for their personal agenda, instead of upgrading it to the international level.
Please note also that despite of the mentioned design differences, AS 1210 does not have a supporting computer aided design software and relies on the PV Elite for a competitive design cost (as alternative to the manual calculation!!). Pain in the back, since AS 1210 uses lower allowables for many of the ASME materials and the PV Elite materials database has to be modified to suit the AS 1210 compliance requirement.
That's in a nut shell, if you have a specific design in your mind, I probably could give you some better advice than the above.
Cheers,
gr2vessels
There are additional requirements in regard of the equipment registration in various states of Australia. typically, first additional requirement is compliance with AS 1210, AS 3920, AS 4343. Depending on the level of compliance required, the design and fabrication requirements may include the use of more conservative allowable stresses, external; nozzle loads calculated in accordance with PD 5500 Annex G in lieu of WRC (more conservative allowable stress limits), the final hydrotest pressure calculated in accordance with AS 1210 in liew of UG-99 calculation. One important thing, the vessel registration must be preceded by a third party design review in Australia and the design registration. The third party certification might be an issue, because the local authority approved reviewers are making money from rejecting as many as possible times the design, including any minor or insignificant error, since each subsequent review must be paid in full as the first one. There is nothing you can do, the vessel cannot be installed and operated without that review/certification for compliance with AS 1210. Please note that AS 1210 has not been revised since 1999 and is largely based on the 1997 edition, in fact written in 1995, mostly based on the ASME VIII, with some imports from BS 5500. It's dissapointing to see this valuable standard left behind for over a decade and some opportunistic people missusing it for their personal agenda, instead of upgrading it to the international level.
Please note also that despite of the mentioned design differences, AS 1210 does not have a supporting computer aided design software and relies on the PV Elite for a competitive design cost (as alternative to the manual calculation!!). Pain in the back, since AS 1210 uses lower allowables for many of the ASME materials and the PV Elite materials database has to be modified to suit the AS 1210 compliance requirement.
That's in a nut shell, if you have a specific design in your mind, I probably could give you some better advice than the above.
Cheers,
gr2vessels
This is my understanding:
Check AS/NZS1200 which in clause 2.1 states that pressure equipment shall comply with the requirements specified in the standards listed in table 2.1. The table 2.1 includes other design codes AS1210, ASME BPV-VIII Div 1 and PD5500.
For Western Australia this means that the design verification / design / manufacture of pressure equipment can be carried out in accordance with any of these standards and meet the requirement of the WorkSafe regulations.
Some clients may insist of AS1210
The main difference between AS1210 and ASME VIII Div 1 is in the NDT applied. AS1210 is more onerous.
AS1210 is basically ASME VIII for design – but it still uses UTS/4 as opposed to UTS/3.5 strictly for flange designs
Check AS/NZS1200 which in clause 2.1 states that pressure equipment shall comply with the requirements specified in the standards listed in table 2.1. The table 2.1 includes other design codes AS1210, ASME BPV-VIII Div 1 and PD5500.
For Western Australia this means that the design verification / design / manufacture of pressure equipment can be carried out in accordance with any of these standards and meet the requirement of the WorkSafe regulations.
Some clients may insist of AS1210
The main difference between AS1210 and ASME VIII Div 1 is in the NDT applied. AS1210 is more onerous.
AS1210 is basically ASME VIII for design – but it still uses UTS/4 as opposed to UTS/3.5 strictly for flange designs
"The third party certification might be an issue, because the local authority approved reviewers are making money from rejecting as many as possible times the design, including any minor or insignificant error, since each subsequent review must be paid in full as the first one. There is nothing you can do, the vessel cannot be installed and operated without that review/certification for compliance with AS 1210."
Well that isn't true, a verification will usually involve some revisions to the calculations and drawings but it will always get approved for the quoted cost of verification. Is there a personal problem you have with design verifiers?
And the second part isn't true either. You are correct regarding the additional items to be design to verify an ASME vessel to AS1210 but ASME vessels don't have to be verified to AS1210 to be used in Australia. Most of the vessels for Gorgon are designed, fabricated and verified to ASME VIII Div1 and 2.
Well that isn't true, a verification will usually involve some revisions to the calculations and drawings but it will always get approved for the quoted cost of verification. Is there a personal problem you have with design verifiers?
And the second part isn't true either. You are correct regarding the additional items to be design to verify an ASME vessel to AS1210 but ASME vessels don't have to be verified to AS1210 to be used in Australia. Most of the vessels for Gorgon are designed, fabricated and verified to ASME VIII Div1 and 2.
Yeah Dept Mines WA. I think it may be possible on an individual case basis but you have to prove that the ASME design is more conservative than AS1210 and where the more conservative design requirements of AS1210 have been taken into account in the ASME design and construction. Basically not worth it for a one off vessel but for a large upgrade it could be worth the time.
gr2vessels
Mechanical
I am obviously on the wrong side of the fence but you, engaddict you are on the defensive side, but that would not not change anything on the obsolescence of the AS 1210 in the international engineering field, that any pressure vessel standard not upgraded in the last decade (more than 15 years) is used today by wrong people for wrong purposes. People denying the right for AS 1210 to catch up with the rest of the world have their own peculiar agenda. And the quoted cost of verification is only valid for one verification, good or wrong. Any subsequent verification done by the WA 'experts' IS charged again. I know this first hand, after being charged for three 'verifications'.
The Gorgon project is a project robbing the Australian designers of their legitimate contribution and favours those 'WA verifiers' who opted for easy money 'but ASME vessels don't have to be verified to AS1210 to be used in Australia'. That's double standards.
I am proud of AS 1210 and I'll be the first one to help update it above ASME and EN 13455 because I know we have the guts and the power and knowledge to do so. That's way the PV Elite cannot be used with 'WA verifiers', because they have worked out how to make money out of the difference between in the progress of the ASME code and the obsolete AS 1210. It's ludicrous to claim non coformance with AS 1210 using the 2010 allowable stresses for ASME materials, only because the AS 1210 is using the allowables listed in ASME II Table D in 1995!.
Sorry guys, I got a bit worked up, but luckily we have people like Peter McGowan who said ASME is 90% words and 10% essence, if we keep AS 1210 90% essence and 10% ASME, then we'll be right. He said that 15 years ago.
Cheers,
gr2vessels
The Gorgon project is a project robbing the Australian designers of their legitimate contribution and favours those 'WA verifiers' who opted for easy money 'but ASME vessels don't have to be verified to AS1210 to be used in Australia'. That's double standards.
I am proud of AS 1210 and I'll be the first one to help update it above ASME and EN 13455 because I know we have the guts and the power and knowledge to do so. That's way the PV Elite cannot be used with 'WA verifiers', because they have worked out how to make money out of the difference between in the progress of the ASME code and the obsolete AS 1210. It's ludicrous to claim non coformance with AS 1210 using the 2010 allowable stresses for ASME materials, only because the AS 1210 is using the allowables listed in ASME II Table D in 1995!.
Sorry guys, I got a bit worked up, but luckily we have people like Peter McGowan who said ASME is 90% words and 10% essence, if we keep AS 1210 90% essence and 10% ASME, then we'll be right. He said that 15 years ago.
Cheers,
gr2vessels
If you know Peter and the others on the committee then you would know they have been working on updating the standard, the new revision is due out this year. Did they not contact you to ask for your input in the final draft?
I don't think I am on the defensive side, I just don't understand your contempt for WA designers. Perhaps you should try a different verifier, some are clearly better that others. There is no conspiracy to make money here but basically the only work that comes through is verification since all design (and fabrication) has been outsourced overseas. The Gorgon project has been touted as our greatest resources project in Aust. 50bn for the economy but then they let 90% of the work go OS. Very poorly managed.
As for the cost of verification, are you implying you should pay a one off fee that covers as many verifications as you wish? One design - one verification, simple. If you have 3 vessels, with the same or similar design - one verification. If your verifier wont offer that call another, with the GFC verification rates are the lowest they have been for a long time, you will easily be able to find a verifier who will agree to a lower rate for similar designs. Beware of the verifiers greatly undercutting costs, verification takes time, low rates - low standards.
I don't think I am on the defensive side, I just don't understand your contempt for WA designers. Perhaps you should try a different verifier, some are clearly better that others. There is no conspiracy to make money here but basically the only work that comes through is verification since all design (and fabrication) has been outsourced overseas. The Gorgon project has been touted as our greatest resources project in Aust. 50bn for the economy but then they let 90% of the work go OS. Very poorly managed.
As for the cost of verification, are you implying you should pay a one off fee that covers as many verifications as you wish? One design - one verification, simple. If you have 3 vessels, with the same or similar design - one verification. If your verifier wont offer that call another, with the GFC verification rates are the lowest they have been for a long time, you will easily be able to find a verifier who will agree to a lower rate for similar designs. Beware of the verifiers greatly undercutting costs, verification takes time, low rates - low standards.
In my opinion the only way AS1210 wins is in Class 1H designs using the AS1548 steels for high pressure designs requiring thick wall vessels.
Otherwise it’s ASME VIII Div 1 with a little more NDE.
Going off topic slightly, the worst thing for me is the fact that all the engineering design work for the new Australian LNG and other plants is going overseas – that is more of an issue than losing AS1210 to ASME VIII.
When I first came here 10 years ago Perth was being touted as a new "LNG centre of excellennce and design", I think not, how times change....
Otherwise it’s ASME VIII Div 1 with a little more NDE.
Going off topic slightly, the worst thing for me is the fact that all the engineering design work for the new Australian LNG and other plants is going overseas – that is more of an issue than losing AS1210 to ASME VIII.
When I first came here 10 years ago Perth was being touted as a new "LNG centre of excellennce and design", I think not, how times change....
The new edition of AS1210 is due out in September / October this year.It has taken longer than it should but unfortunately neither any of the Regulators or major users have contributed anything to its revision despite being the major beneficeries. Hence the workload has fallen to a few people like Peter McGowan. It hasnt helped that Standards Australia has a very limited income source that grew out of the splitting of SAA & SAI Global which was forced on it by the Federal govt.
As for the verifiers in WA ( I am one of them) most I believe are ethetical & do not rob their clients & try to help clients. I spend a lot of my time trying to educate clients on the Regulations etc for which we rarely get paid or thanks. However there will always be execptions.
ASME vessels can be used in WA & are regularly approved by Worksafe & the WA Mine's Dept once an exemption is applied for. However all ASME vessels must have the U stamp for registration by either Mines dept of Worksafe. However as there are no ASME site accrediated repairers in WA or most states of Aust, theoretically the ASME vessels cannot be repaired without loosing the U stamp & hence registration. Gorgon is going to find out the consequences of their decision to go ASME in a few years & I'm sure they will regret it but by then it will be too late.
I believe AS1210 is a better standard than ASME but as I am on the AS1210 committee I am probably biased.
As for the verifiers in WA ( I am one of them) most I believe are ethetical & do not rob their clients & try to help clients. I spend a lot of my time trying to educate clients on the Regulations etc for which we rarely get paid or thanks. However there will always be execptions.
ASME vessels can be used in WA & are regularly approved by Worksafe & the WA Mine's Dept once an exemption is applied for. However all ASME vessels must have the U stamp for registration by either Mines dept of Worksafe. However as there are no ASME site accrediated repairers in WA or most states of Aust, theoretically the ASME vessels cannot be repaired without loosing the U stamp & hence registration. Gorgon is going to find out the consequences of their decision to go ASME in a few years & I'm sure they will regret it but by then it will be too late.
I believe AS1210 is a better standard than ASME but as I am on the AS1210 committee I am probably biased.
For anyone in Sydney there is a technical forum on the evening of 16th September 2010 concerning Australian Standards for Pressure Vessels. This is being presented by the Institution of Engineers Australia/ ASME & Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
Forum - Australian Standards for Pressure Vessels
Chair: Peter Walsh – Managing Director, CaSServ
Adrian O’Connell – General Manager Operations, Standards Australia
Peter McGowan – Senior Engineering Consultant, Orica Australia
Shane Kim – General Manager, Cryeng Pty Ltd
Doug Wallis – Technical Director, All Areas Inspections
Stan Ambrose – Chair SA Committee ME-013
Starting: Light refreshments at 5.00pm for a 5.30pm start
Finishing: 7.40 to 7.50pm
Venue: Engineers Australia Auditorium, Ground Floor, 8 Thomas Street, Chatswood
RSVP: Registration with EA Sydney Office is essential
Register on-line at:
Adrian will outline the current process for amending and updating Australian Standards with particular reference to those for Pressure Equipment (PE).
Peter McGowan, Shane Kim and Doug Wallis will comment on the relevance of Australian and overseas PE standards from their respective points of view as a user, a manufacturer and an inspector.
Stan Ambrose will comment on issues with PE arising from the introduction of national Work Health Safety Regulations in January 2012. In particular he will comment on the effects of possible non-uniformities in these regulations between states.
A summary of the outcomes from the forum will be sent to the Standards Australia Committee ME-001, Boilers and Pressure Vessels and other interested parties for their consideration.
ASAP send your questions for the panel to Peter.Walsh@casserv.com for consideration with questions from the floor.
Further information: Please contact Jim Vickery: mailto:jimvicoy@tpg.com.au
Dinner option: With the panel members; 8.00pm at a nearby restaurant (at cost)
The meeting is open to all, and there is no attendance charge
Note: Members in attendance qualify for a CPD credit per the criteria of Engineers Australia or the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Members are responsible for keeping their records ready for an audit.
You are receiving this email as part of your membership to Engineers Australia. If you no longer wish to receive Email Notices please send a reply with the word Unsubscribe in the subject heading or use the Unsubscribe link provided
Forum - Australian Standards for Pressure Vessels
Chair: Peter Walsh – Managing Director, CaSServ
Adrian O’Connell – General Manager Operations, Standards Australia
Peter McGowan – Senior Engineering Consultant, Orica Australia
Shane Kim – General Manager, Cryeng Pty Ltd
Doug Wallis – Technical Director, All Areas Inspections
Stan Ambrose – Chair SA Committee ME-013
Starting: Light refreshments at 5.00pm for a 5.30pm start
Finishing: 7.40 to 7.50pm
Venue: Engineers Australia Auditorium, Ground Floor, 8 Thomas Street, Chatswood
RSVP: Registration with EA Sydney Office is essential
Register on-line at:
Adrian will outline the current process for amending and updating Australian Standards with particular reference to those for Pressure Equipment (PE).
Peter McGowan, Shane Kim and Doug Wallis will comment on the relevance of Australian and overseas PE standards from their respective points of view as a user, a manufacturer and an inspector.
Stan Ambrose will comment on issues with PE arising from the introduction of national Work Health Safety Regulations in January 2012. In particular he will comment on the effects of possible non-uniformities in these regulations between states.
A summary of the outcomes from the forum will be sent to the Standards Australia Committee ME-001, Boilers and Pressure Vessels and other interested parties for their consideration.
ASAP send your questions for the panel to Peter.Walsh@casserv.com for consideration with questions from the floor.
Further information: Please contact Jim Vickery: mailto:jimvicoy@tpg.com.au
Dinner option: With the panel members; 8.00pm at a nearby restaurant (at cost)
The meeting is open to all, and there is no attendance charge
Note: Members in attendance qualify for a CPD credit per the criteria of Engineers Australia or the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Members are responsible for keeping their records ready for an audit.
You are receiving this email as part of your membership to Engineers Australia. If you no longer wish to receive Email Notices please send a reply with the word Unsubscribe in the subject heading or use the Unsubscribe link provided
This thread is a bit old but I thought I make a few comments.
The project I'm working on, a new LNG plant, everything seems to be ASME. That's been driven by two things, fabrication will be done overseas (client said that from the onset), and the way its going the detailed design will go to the US and possibly China where they have minimal knowledge of local codes. They will life-cycle the plant off, so items will be replaced from overseas. I suppose it will be very good business for the local verifiers, but somehow I think Australia is missing out on a lot of local engineering jobs by some of the big international operators "voting" and going with ASME standards.
The project I'm working on, a new LNG plant, everything seems to be ASME. That's been driven by two things, fabrication will be done overseas (client said that from the onset), and the way its going the detailed design will go to the US and possibly China where they have minimal knowledge of local codes. They will life-cycle the plant off, so items will be replaced from overseas. I suppose it will be very good business for the local verifiers, but somehow I think Australia is missing out on a lot of local engineering jobs by some of the big international operators "voting" and going with ASME standards.
- Status