Butterfly valve 3

[kpm21443]

Dear Friends,

We have some stock butterfly valves purchased from a company in Korea. The company is completely closed now. The name plates of the valves has no value on pressure value @ 100 Deg F. Our client informed us to punch the pressure value as per the standard & deliver the vale to them. I referred the standard & have taken the below pressure values. Please help me if I am correct:

A216 WCB body with PTFE seat - Pressure rating @ 100F is 285 PSI based on ASME B16.34. Is this correct
A351 CF8 body with PTFE seat - Pressure rating @ 100F is 275 PSI based on ASME B16.34. Is this correct
B148 C95800 body with PTFE seat - Pressure rating @ 100F is 195 PSI based on ASME B16.24. Is this correct
A126 CLB body with NBR seat - I do not know the Pressure rating @ 100F. Can any one help me

 

[hsbcn]

Are these flanged or other type of ends? Do you have any information on bore size and class? Don't you have any MTRs to refer to?

I work with valves in exotic alloys at alloy-valves.com. This is our blog, and this is me on Twitter and LinkedIn. Let's connect!

 

[gerhardl]

If you mark the valves without a proper test or any other proof that the valves actually ar constructed, fabricated and tested for theese pressure values you will have a large juridical responsibility.

 

[kpm21443]

Dear hsbcn,

These valves are flanged ends, 3,4,6,8,10 inches & class 150. We do have MTR but the pressure rating is not mentioned.

Dear gerhardl,
Our client requires these valves urgently & they have officially informed us to punch the pressure values.

 

[LittleInch]

I agree with gerhardl - the client might instruct you to do it, but the responsibility is still yours. Without more data on construction and testing these valves are, IMHO, unfortunately just scrap metal at the moment. You could do some pressure testing or if you have more data than just the MTRs, but ultimately the client is asking you to take responsibility or otherwise why doesn't he just take them as they are??

If they fail in service, it's your name and stamp, not some worthless e-mail from the client that counts....

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

 

[Danlap]

Agree with all the posts above,

Client (End user) consist of:
1. End user (Operation)
2. Procurement,
3. Valve Engineer (and Inspection department)
4. Incoming goods inspection,
In a very odd case, all of them (at least 1 & 3) will sign the deviation / derogation and accept your valve (assuming you are distributor with certified quality standards). However further assessment for the existing valve (PMI testing, Pressure testing, etc.) should be commenced. Other mitigation should be applied as well
Incoming goods department is a very SOP minded personnel, they will surely assess all the certificates related prior acceptance.
Operation especially the veteran ones are ingenuity people who often thinks that if it is not critical (from their Point of View), they seldom accept anything as long it comfy their Project / delivery window.
Procurement is likely to be only the SAP input personnel. Their KPI is delivery time and price (should this valve to be Lloyd tested of course will add additional time and price). I never see procurement direct KPI related to quality of the valve in detail
Valve engineer (along with Material and Inspection dept) are the ones who has a rope tied in their neck for the next 5 years (at least) shall the valve goes totally wrong (during operation).

Never seen this before. However yes, times are changing. IMHO, Distributor often use (refer to contract) standard valve delivery times is 24-40 weeks, thus End user always offered with alternatives. And to be honest the case is getting more complex each time. Especially for a growth scope found on the latest project (shortage of money and limited lead time).
If this valve going into my Plant, I will reject it straight away. I may change my mind if only it is re-PMI tested by Lloyd or else, Re-CE marked, Re-tested.

Regards,
MR



Greenfield and Brownfield have one thing in common; Valve(s) is deemed to "run to fail" earlier shall compared to other equipments

 

[SPDL310]

I agree with Muktiadi the valves are so much scrap iron in their current state, and should not be tagged until all appropriate tests and calculations have been performed to determine the acceptability of the design.

 

[gfdoug]

Agree with the majority here.

Stamping these without tests would be quite unethical.