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 cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
GB150 Code 1
- Thread starter richeyb
- Start date
gr2vessels
Mechanical
richeyb,
Can you please clarify the question;- has the chinese pressure vessel code replace the ASME code in USA? is this the question?
gr2vessels
Can you please clarify the question;- has the chinese pressure vessel code replace the ASME code in USA? is this the question?
gr2vessels
- Thread starter
- #3
We are consisdering the Chinese built vessels for an application in Texas, they normally build to the GB150 code (China pressure vessels)They can also build to ASME code but getting ASME cert. in China is very expensive.
So the question is, has there been or is any current ref to GB150 versus ASME that we could refer to ? And does anyone have an opinion of the GB150 code based on experience ?
So the question is, has there been or is any current ref to GB150 versus ASME that we could refer to ? And does anyone have an opinion of the GB150 code based on experience ?
richeyb;
I would obtain a copy of the Chinese Code and review it very carefully against ASME B&PV Code. If you don’t feel comfortable, hire out this review expertise.
I don’t believe that Texas regulates pressure vessels, so you can do as you please regarding pressure vessels that have been built to another code of construction. For those Jurisdictions in the US that do regulate pressure vessels, they will allow 'state specials' to obtain operating certificates under careful review by a licensed, PE (experienced in PV design). Typically, vessels that are ‘state specials’ are either built to another code of construction or have been in-service and are being transported to the US for operation.
I would obtain a copy of the Chinese Code and review it very carefully against ASME B&PV Code. If you don’t feel comfortable, hire out this review expertise.
I don’t believe that Texas regulates pressure vessels, so you can do as you please regarding pressure vessels that have been built to another code of construction. For those Jurisdictions in the US that do regulate pressure vessels, they will allow 'state specials' to obtain operating certificates under careful review by a licensed, PE (experienced in PV design). Typically, vessels that are ‘state specials’ are either built to another code of construction or have been in-service and are being transported to the US for operation.
TECHNICAL NOTE:
IF THE CHINA CONTRACT STATE ASME IT IS ASME.
IF THE CHINA CONTRACT STATE ASME AND CHINA CODE GB150, USE ASME WITH THE CHINESE CODE FATOR IN GB-150.
IF THE CONTRACT STATE CHINESE CODE GB-150, request a deviaction to the contract USE ASME WITH THE CHINESE CODE FATOR IN GB-150.
been their did that
IF THE CHINA CONTRACT STATE ASME IT IS ASME.
IF THE CHINA CONTRACT STATE ASME AND CHINA CODE GB150, USE ASME WITH THE CHINESE CODE FATOR IN GB-150.
IF THE CONTRACT STATE CHINESE CODE GB-150, request a deviaction to the contract USE ASME WITH THE CHINESE CODE FATOR IN GB-150.
been their did that
-
1
- #6
You need to read this.
If you are a HSBCT customer go to the web site.To get your certificate is much like a ASME review.
Oddly I happen to be involved in a PRC review for the next 3 days.
If you are a HSBCT customer go to the web site.To get your certificate is much like a ASME review.
Oddly I happen to be involved in a PRC review for the next 3 days.
You would find a fair amount of similarities between GB 150 and SC VIII-1. You would find figures and sketches in GB 150 that look like they were taken from SC VIII-1. There are however, some fundamental differences. Materials are one; GB 150 has its own allowable stress tables but they do not reference ASME SA materials; then the design margin on tensile/yield are less conservative than SC VIII-1. GB-150 also references many other standards for materials and product forms that become part of their code. Perhaps the situation is better today than it was a year ago, but many of these standards could not be obtained in an English translation. Then there are differences that are very subtle; one could stare at the two standards for weeks/months and not find them all.
Now, as far as the possibility of using in the US, the only mechanism I can think of to give this the possibility of being workable would be to petition your jurisdiction for a "State Special". However, I think that the amount of homework that would be required to convince the jurisdiction that GB 150 would provide a level of safety equivalent to SC VIII-1 would be substantial and it would be very possible to erode any perceived cost savings to the point where it is no longer economical to pursue.
For those in jurisdictions that do not have pressure vessel laws, the likelihood is very high that there is a relevant OSHA regulation that mandates ASME construction. And if one could even find an OSHA person in a position of authority to approve, they would have to do the same level of homework and probably have no better chance of getting approval than the State authoritiies.
This is a long winded way to say that while conceivably it could be done (and someday it may indeed occur), I think it will be a long time (if ever) before you see it because of the amount of effort required.
Now, as far as the possibility of using in the US, the only mechanism I can think of to give this the possibility of being workable would be to petition your jurisdiction for a "State Special". However, I think that the amount of homework that would be required to convince the jurisdiction that GB 150 would provide a level of safety equivalent to SC VIII-1 would be substantial and it would be very possible to erode any perceived cost savings to the point where it is no longer economical to pursue.
For those in jurisdictions that do not have pressure vessel laws, the likelihood is very high that there is a relevant OSHA regulation that mandates ASME construction. And if one could even find an OSHA person in a position of authority to approve, they would have to do the same level of homework and probably have no better chance of getting approval than the State authoritiies.
This is a long winded way to say that while conceivably it could be done (and someday it may indeed occur), I think it will be a long time (if ever) before you see it because of the amount of effort required.
I looked at the National Board Synopsis for Texas. It looks like they require ASME construction but they do not Inspect or require National board Registration. It would be best to call them and find out for sure. I also remember hearing that as of 1/1/2007 they will start to regulate pressure vessels.
I am a AIS who has been working in China for the past month.
Since I have been here I have reviewed many QC Manuals.For what ever reason there is no mention Of "Jurisdictional Requirements" in the scope of work on the Facing page or the Statement of Authority. In the record retention it states" when required by the owner/user the vessel will be registered with the National Board. ASME conducts the Tri-enniel reviews overseass.This would not be acceptable in North America.I am puzzled by the oversite.
Since I have been here I have reviewed many QC Manuals.For what ever reason there is no mention Of "Jurisdictional Requirements" in the scope of work on the Facing page or the Statement of Authority. In the record retention it states" when required by the owner/user the vessel will be registered with the National Board. ASME conducts the Tri-enniel reviews overseass.This would not be acceptable in North America.I am puzzled by the oversite.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
