CSA flange on ASME B31.3, is it acceptable?

[mat211743]

we have CSA Z662 disposal water pipeline (D.T = 85C and D.P = 5500 kpag) underground and at the wellhead facilities it changes to ASME B31.3 piping. A 2" CL 600 flange on B31.3 piping for temperature tansmitter was found to be CL 600 (PN 100)CSA Gr.359 Cat II and ASME B16.5/CSA 245.12.The flange does not seem to be dual certified. Is it an acceptable substitution? i verified the Gr.359 material properties and P-T ratings against SA 105 which would otherwise have been there. They are comparable except minor variations in composition. I don't see an issue in terms on integrity. Any thoughts from other members?

 

[BigInch]

The metal might be OK, but the paperwork will explode for sure.

Independent events are seldomly independent.

 

[nickelkid]

304.7.2 provides the criteria of what you will need to substantiate the design for an unlisted component. From what you described, and a bit of effort, I believe you will be able get a reasonable amount - hopefully not an explosion - of documentation together justifying compliance.

 

[SNORGY]

mat211743

When you state:

"A 2" CL 600 flange on B31.3 piping for temperature tansmitter was found to be CL 600 (PN 100)CSA Gr.359 Cat II and ASME B16.5/CSA 245.12."

Does it actually say that on the flange? If so, it appears to indeed be dual rated. If not, I am inclined to believe the material substitution is acceptable and can be demonstrated and accepted as such without much trouble to an A.I. For one thing, the Category II notch toughness specification would not be met without additional testing by the SA-105 flange. There may be some wrinkles down the road if you ever needed to raise the piping design pressure to at or near ASME B16.5 ratings for lower temperatures, since "technically", the CSA Z245.12 flange is only "rated" to 9,930 kPag below and up to 120 C, whereas the A-105 flange is rated to about 10,200 kPag up to and including 38 C. The pressure rating crossover point is somewhere around 55 C.

As BigInch and RobinHandy stated, it's a paper issue more than a technical issue.

 

[mat211743]

Thanks BigInch, RobinHandy and SNORGY for your replies.

Robinhandy: I will look into 304.7.2 as suggested.
SNORGY: I checked with the supplier and he confirmed it is not dual certified. ASME is stamped on the flange since CSA refers to ASME. So the flange is CSA material spec and ASME dimensional spec. As CSA and ASME dimensions are the same, the flange is essentially the CSA flange.
The piping is located inside a heated building and not expected to see lower temperatures. Though Cat II is not required, I assume the construction guys took the flange from CSA UG pipeline inventory and welded on B31.3.
In any case increasing the DP is not possible as the upstream UG piping flanges are also rated at 9930 kpag (ie. Cl 600 CSA flanges).

Now there is another question of acceptable welding procedure.It seems the contractor used P1-P1 procedures to weld CSA flange to ASME piping. For sure it sounds like, welding cannot be justified by any paper work!!

 

[SNORGY]

I believe that P1 to P1 in the WPS is OK for this case as well. What might change somewhat is the radiographic interpretation (if applicable) with respect to weld acceptance, depending on which Code is followed towards determining permissible versus non-permissible weld flaw indications. It sounds like they probably used ASME Section IX to qualify the WPS if the weld is made on the B31.3 side of the specification.

 

[mat211743]

SNORGY: Are you referring to Table 7.1 and clauses 7.2.5 and 7.2.6?