×
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!

*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

CSA Z245.1 Steel Linepipe compliance with NACE MR0175/ISO15156-2

CSA Z245.1 Steel Linepipe compliance with NACE MR0175/ISO15156-2

CSA Z245.1 Steel Linepipe compliance with NACE MR0175/ISO15156-2

(OP)
Hi Everbody,
I came across and noted NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-2 Table A.2 considered API 5L pipes up to grade X65 material as prequalified material for SSC resistance complying with A.2.1 requirements.
May we extend that to CSA Z245.1 Steel Line pipe up to Gr. 448 which has similar Yield strength and same criteria for fabrication as X65 to be prequalified?
Is there any NACE interpretation allowing that?
Thanks!

RE: CSA Z245.1 Steel Linepipe compliance with NACE MR0175/ISO15156-2

Answer to Inquiry #2007-05:

Many steels, including ASTM A 216, are not individually listed in NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-2. As stated in A.2.1.1 General, Para. 3:
"The majority of steels that comply with the general requirements of A.2 are not individually listed; however, for convenience, some examples of such steels are listed in Table A.2, Table A.3 and Table A.4." A.2.1.1 deals only with sulfide stress corrosion resistance.

Essentially, the listing is superfluous and, if it were me, it wouldn't be in the document at all (along with a lot of other things)

If you believe that simply listing the standard and grade alone constitutes "qualification," you might wish to read the standard again. Another common misdirection by the standard, yet it's still there in the 2020 version. This is probably because the standard was written by scientists rather than engineers.

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant

www.linkedin.com/in/drstevejones

All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now
The Great Project Profitability Debate
A/E firms have a great opportunity to lead the world into the future, but the industry’s greatest asset—real-time data—is sitting wasted in clunky, archaic ERP platforms. Learn how real-time, fully interactive dashboards in a modern ERP allow you to unlock data that will shape the future of the world. 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