ASME Sect. 1 Hydrostatic Testing for part manufacturer 2

[jovizhu]

Gentlemen,
My questions are:

Q1 - Is hydrotest mandatory on ASME Sect.1 for a part manufacturer?

AI is not resident in shop. If the hydrotest is considered a Code reqiurement, AI shall 100% witness. But fabrication schedule never allows us to wait for AI's witnessing of the unassemblied coils, panels, header manifolds one by one.

I'm working in a boiler & pressure vessel manufacturer in China. ASME Sect. 1 is one of the main Codes we follow to fabricate boiler pressure parts. The company is an "S" stamp holder but for yesrs fabricates boiler pressure parts as a part manufacturer, certifies products as per PG-106.8.1 and submits P-4 reports. Actually, I wonder if we are a real part manufacturer, as most of our products are unassemblied prior to shipment and then will be assemblied by the erector in the field. That's to say we never supply a completed part of SH, RH or Eco of boiler.

ASME Sect. 1 2007:
Clause of PG-106.8.1: When only a part of the boiler is supplied and the data are recorded on Form P-4, Manufacturer’s Partial Data Report (see PG-112.2.4), the part shall be stamped with
(a) ASME Code Symbol above the word “part”
(b) certified by (name of Manufacturer)
(c) Manufacturer’s serial number of the part
(d) year built
Parts may be stamped with ASME Code Symbol without being pressure tested prior to shipment.

Q2 - Is that to say Hydrotest on PG-99 and PW-54 are not applicable to us? since the minimum unit of our products is not PART but part pieces.


Thanks for your time.

JZ

 

[gr2vessels]

If you qualify under the PG-112.6, then the hydrotest is not mandatory.
Cheers,
gr2vessels

 

[metengr]

Hydrotesting IS required if the pressure part has pressure boundary welds from fabrication, this is clearly stated in Section I under PW-54.

The problem has been hydrotesting in the shop versus field installation. An ASME “S” stamp holder can waive hydrotesting in the shop for pressure parts by indicating as such on the partial data report. If a shop hydrostatic test is required by contract, the S stamp holder is obligated to have an AI witness this test, based on PG-90.1.13

 

[jovizhu]

gr2vessels and metengr,
Thanx so much. You both gave me valuable answers.

A new question is born:
I was orally told by our AI that any welding on pressure parts will result in the mandatory need of P-4 report.

But PG-112.6 shows: Manufacturer’s Partial Data Report Form P-4 and stamping in accordance with PG-106 are neither required nor prohibited for pressure parts that do not contain pressure retaining welds (e.g., boiler furnace walls, floor panel assemblies, tubes with support or hanger lugs).

Was the AI telling me a figment? Highly appreciate the answer.


I can't agree more with metengr on the "Contractual Obligation". I think the root problem we have is that the Proposal Dept. people don't not consider the AI inspection cost, especially the influence on the fabrication schedule when they receive a RFQ including contractual shop hydrotest requirement. We would have no problem provided that the cost and the delay of fabrication caused by AI's witnessing are well considered bu the both sides during the quotation.

metengr, appreciate your comments on this.

Regards,

JZ

 

[metengr]

I was orally told by our AI that any welding on pressure parts will result in the mandatory need of P-4 report.

Incorrect. Membrane welds on tube panels are not pressure boundary welds (welds (groove, that are subjected to pressure retaining service, not structural attachment welds to parts).