Nameplate Format - 2007 Section VIII Div 1

[dalea60]

I'm trying to figure out how to re-format our nameplate to meet the 2007 Section VIII Div 1 UG-119. I don't want to increase the size of our nameplate. Has anyone had experience with how precisely the format/wording has to match figure UG-118? Having Pressure & Temperature spelled out along with an additional line for external MAWP takes up a lot of room.

Thanks,
Dale

 

[CodeRef]

Per UG-118(c) of the 2007 Edition of VIII-1, the nameplate marking arrangement shall be substantially as shown in Fig. UG-118 (FORM OF STAMPING).
As long as all of the required markings are on the nameplate and are in logical order, substantially separating Code information from NonCode Information (when applicable), is acceptable.

I have seen many variations of nameplate designs. Every one is substantially as shown in UG-118.

Be free to contact your AIA of Record to provide them with your proposed nameplate design.
They are there to help and should ALWAYS be your first contact for issues of this nature

There are three kinds of people in this world; those who can count and those who can't.

 

[JezPV]

Dale,

I suggest you ask you AI what they are willing to accept. We abbreviate the working of our ASME U-Stamp nameplates. i.e. MAWP 3500kPa at 100ºC.

Comparing 2004 / 2007 it appears that the wording of UG-116(a)(3&4) have been changed, however it is my opinion that this has only been changed to make the wording of the paragraph clear, and not to make an actual change to the wording of a nameplate.

Having just read an overview of Code changes by our AI I can confirm that they have not highlighed this as a change to code.

Once again it all comes down to what your AI is willing to accept.

Jez

 

[dalea60]

Thanks for the replies. I'll try to get a hold of our AI & ask some questions. Figure UG-118 is what makes a person wonder if the wording is critical.

Dale

 

[CodeRef]

As I said earlier "substantially as shown" is a relative term and thereby good to have the AIA on board just so you can defend your position to others who may want to disagree.

A case in point was where a certificate holder asked if it was okay to utilize two nameplates in lieu of one nameplate for units such as Vessel/Jacket or Tubeside/Shellside etc... By going with one nameplate design and stamping the required data for each, the company saved money by utilizing one design for a single nameplate and made it fit all their applications.
A custoomer challenged whether it was acceptable to stamp the ASME symbol more than once i.e.. (Vessel/Jacket) and because it is not specifically prohibited or even addressed in the Code, and the AIA was on board with it, it was an quick end to the discussion.


There are three kinds of people in this world; those who can count and those who can't.

 

[GenB]

JezPV: no, the AI may accept something that he/she seems to be good but the true is, you are responsible for the name plate to comply with the ASME and the NB;
ask around, check with other mfrs. then make your decision in how the NP will finally look and then get the AI to follow up on it.-

same to CodeJackal: the shop can get away one job but if they keep doing it may get them in big trouble (as the 2 nameplates job);
you may get in a lot of trouble if you leave the job to the AI, only when you get a recall for few to a lot of vessels in a jurisdiction you will know that you were wrong.

 

[CodeRef]

GenB,
I agree, I only think that having the AIA (through the AI) on board for a nameplate design makes it that much more likely to be accepted. What one is looking for is concensus. in the end, it is the Certificate Holder that is responsible for Code Compliance.

There are three kinds of people in this world; those who can count and those who can't.