×
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

ASME Code Stamping (ASME Sec VIII Div-1)

ASME Code Stamping (ASME Sec VIII Div-1)

ASME Code Stamping (ASME Sec VIII Div-1)

(OP)
Dear Members,

I need your help with regard to CODE stamping. We have a LOOP REACTOR (datasheet attached) in one of the PP plant (in INDIA) which needs to be Code stamped.
As highlighted in YELLOW in sheet 3 of the datasheet, bottom spool pieces are having SITE WELDS (to facilitate the alignment with the PUMP at site).
LOOP REACTOR vendor is stating that since SITE WELD is involved, final hydro testing and CODE STAMPING needs to be done AT SITE and to avoid this he has proposed following (vendor email embeded):

QUOTE

Dear Sir,
with reference to section 7.0 of PIM minute, I would share with you the following consideration about final hydrotest and equipment certification of Loop Reactors RR-2001/2002.
The only weld and tests activities at site involve the lower spools connect with pump, for which loose flanges with blind are supplied.
Based on that, we are going to complete whole reactor leg fabrication, test and certification prior delivery. However, since the lower spools are currently part of ASME certified equipment, the whole equipment final hydrotest and certification can not be performed until the last loose flanges will be welded to the spool at site. This would require whole equipment hydrotest at site, with VENDOR and Authorized inspector presence at site, with significant cost and schedule impact.

Instead, we propose to segregate the spool certification from the Reactor ASME certification: the Reactor (without lower spools connected with pump) will be hydrotested and then certified with ASME nameplate by Authorized Inspector, before delivery. Spools will be certified by us as piping component according to ASME B31.3, without ASME stamp/nameplate, and then completed and tested at site by TECNIMONT, with VENDOR supervision if any (to be agreed). In this case the involvement of ASME authorized inspector at site is not required.

The above proposal, already shared with our Authorized Inspector, would require a "formal" revision of documentation (drawing, calculation, ITP, serial number) to segregate spool certification and MDR from reactor certification and MDR.

Please review the above and provide your feedback,

thank you

Best Regards
LOOP REACTOR VENDOR

UNQUOTE

What is your opinion about Vendor’s proposal?
Can we certify the bottom SPOOLS as PIPING components? If yes, HOW? Is it permitted?
How to qualify this? By which code/ method? Reference?

I would highly appreciate your swift reply.

Many thanks for your usual help,


Best regards,
Sunil Agrawal

RE: ASME Code Stamping (ASME Sec VIII Div-1)

I'm not known with the limitations that ASME puts on Code shops regarding locations, although I have seen many ASME stamp certificates mentioning a specific location.
Replacing the bottom parts and bringing them under B31.3 seems like a plausible approach. In that way, you can also verify the complete reactor from a pipe stress point of view (especially for thermal displacement stress ranges); something that might be overlooked when design follows ASME VIII-1. Not that ASME VIII-1 is silent on this matter; it just doesnt provide any further methods to do such analysis, which is why designers something neglect such loadings. This is why piping codes have some advantage. Since the loop reactor is one big piping hookup, with small D/L ratio's, a judgement from a piping pioint of view is not that bad at all. It may however results in different design, e.g. thicknesses, as both codes have different formulae for evaluating required thickness.

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

eBook - Efficient and Effective Production Support with 3D Printed Jigs and Fixtures
Jigs and fixtures offer manufacturers a reliable process for delivering accurate, high-quality outcomes, whether for a specific part or feature, or for consistency across multiples of parts. Although the methodologies and materials for producing jigs and fixtures have evolved beyond the conventional metal tooling of years past, their position as a manufacturing staple remains constant due to the benefits they offer. Download Now
Overcoming Cutting Tool Challenges in Aerospace Machining
Aerospace manufacturing has always been on the cutting edge, from materials to production techniques. However, these two aspects of aerospace machining can conflict, as manufacturers strive to maintain machining efficiency with new materials by using new methods and cutting tools. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close