Does anyone out there know where I can access a 1960 B31.1 Power Piping Code? I have a customer who is interested in raising the temperature of some existing boiler piping and I want to rerate the piping and do a stress analysis of the existing system. Since the boiler was installed in 1960 era I have been instructed to use the orignal code allowables.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Old Piping codes 1
- Thread starter dahar
- Start date
-
1
- #2
dahar;
You better check regarding the term "original" code allowable stress values. Original may not refer to the edition and addenda used for the code of construction, original means the code of construction.
Using an older edition of the code could have serious implications regarding selection of allowable stress values that have been revised over the years for certain grades of piping. The revision of allowable stress downward is something you need to know if you intend to re-rate piping.
You better check regarding the term "original" code allowable stress values. Original may not refer to the edition and addenda used for the code of construction, original means the code of construction.
Using an older edition of the code could have serious implications regarding selection of allowable stress values that have been revised over the years for certain grades of piping. The revision of allowable stress downward is something you need to know if you intend to re-rate piping.
dahar..
I have a "1955ish" vintage copy of ASA B31.1 at home in the garage. I might be able to help you
Specifically, what is your material, what is your piping system and why do you suspect that the older code allowables may be higher than the latest edition..??
This better not be some kind of cheap analysis trick used to qualify that crap low-chrome alloy SA335-P11 (1.25Cr - 0.5 Mo)......Is it ? That stuff has had it's tabulated allowable stress level go up and down over the years. Many utilities have replaced this stuff with reall alloy steel in thier main Steam and Hot reheat systems over the past years. P11 piping systems that were adequately designed in the sixties cannot pass with today's allowable stresses
You may want to contact Mr. John Breen about your request.
-My opinion only
-MJC
I have a "1955ish" vintage copy of ASA B31.1 at home in the garage. I might be able to help you
Specifically, what is your material, what is your piping system and why do you suspect that the older code allowables may be higher than the latest edition..??
This better not be some kind of cheap analysis trick used to qualify that crap low-chrome alloy SA335-P11 (1.25Cr - 0.5 Mo)......Is it ? That stuff has had it's tabulated allowable stress level go up and down over the years. Many utilities have replaced this stuff with reall alloy steel in thier main Steam and Hot reheat systems over the past years. P11 piping systems that were adequately designed in the sixties cannot pass with today's allowable stresses
You may want to contact Mr. John Breen about your request.
-My opinion only
-MJC
- Thread starter
- #5
- Thread starter
- #7
You made me look!
NBIC 2004 - Part RC – RC-3022 Re-rating states:
a. Revise calculations verifying the new service conditions shall be prepared...
b. All re-rating shall be established in accordance with the requirements of the construction standard to which the pressure-retaining item was built.
c. Current inspection records...are satisfactory.
d. The pressure retaining item has been pressure tested, as required, for the new service conditions....
NBIC 2004 - Part RC – RC-3010 Re-rating is a little different and refers to the pressure retaining system being constructed to the 1968 Edition or later of the code.
NBIC 2004 - Part RC – RC-3022 Re-rating states:
a. Revise calculations verifying the new service conditions shall be prepared...
b. All re-rating shall be established in accordance with the requirements of the construction standard to which the pressure-retaining item was built.
c. Current inspection records...are satisfactory.
d. The pressure retaining item has been pressure tested, as required, for the new service conditions....
NBIC 2004 - Part RC – RC-3010 Re-rating is a little different and refers to the pressure retaining system being constructed to the 1968 Edition or later of the code.
- Thread starter
- #9
athomas236
Mechanical
This is an interesting concept.
A piping system was built in the 1960's with all the technology and knowledge of materials that was available at that time. So it is fine to keep running that pipe as long as the inspection and test records show that it is safe to continue operation.
Now we are in 2008 and some one wants to re-rate the pipe system. Is it reasonable to ignore all the improvements in piping design technology and knowledge of materials that have ocurred since the 1960's. I would suggest not because the validation is here in 2008 not back in the 1960's.
Just imagine the out cry if the re-rated pipe fails and some body gets hurt and you are in the witness box in court and your only defence is that you validated the re-rated pipe design using the same rules from the 1960's. Lawyers, judges and members of the jury could find that difficult to understand.
Just a few thoughts.
Regards,
athomas236
A piping system was built in the 1960's with all the technology and knowledge of materials that was available at that time. So it is fine to keep running that pipe as long as the inspection and test records show that it is safe to continue operation.
Now we are in 2008 and some one wants to re-rate the pipe system. Is it reasonable to ignore all the improvements in piping design technology and knowledge of materials that have ocurred since the 1960's. I would suggest not because the validation is here in 2008 not back in the 1960's.
Just imagine the out cry if the re-rated pipe fails and some body gets hurt and you are in the witness box in court and your only defence is that you validated the re-rated pipe design using the same rules from the 1960's. Lawyers, judges and members of the jury could find that difficult to understand.
Just a few thoughts.
Regards,
athomas236
- Thread starter
- #11
Once again lets reiterate: this is per 2004 NBIC (National Board Inspection Code) An American National Standard - ANSI/NB-23 Recognized Internationally.
The reason to do this investigation is to be sure we are doing things lawfully and in the way accepted and mandatory to satisfy the national codes and/or international agencies involved.
The reason to do this investigation is to be sure we are doing things lawfully and in the way accepted and mandatory to satisfy the national codes and/or international agencies involved.
athomas236
Mechanical
I will stay with my previous observation and suggest at the very least that the pipe system is analysed at its original design conditions using the current design code and then again at the re-rated condtions; also with the current design code.
There are two statements in the British standard for power piping that are worthy of note and these are:
"It has been assumed in the drafting of this British Standard that the execution of its provisions is entrusted to appropriately qualified and experienced people."
"Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from leagal obligations."
Best regards,
athomas236
There are two statements in the British standard for power piping that are worthy of note and these are:
"It has been assumed in the drafting of this British Standard that the execution of its provisions is entrusted to appropriately qualified and experienced people."
"Compliance with a British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from leagal obligations."
Best regards,
athomas236
- Thread starter
- #14
If you all remember, I originally asked if anyone knew where I could find a copy of the old code, then I got a lot of answers concerning if this was the correct approach.
I subsequently sent off the question to the NCIB for their interpretation of my customers request to be sure it was the correct approach. The following is the answer that I just received...
Date: 8/14/2008 11:56:17 AM
You have received email from --> David Harding
***************************************************************************
Questions:
I have a customer, in Canada, who is interested in raising the temperature of some existing boiler piping and I want to rerate the piping and do a stress analysis of the existing system. Since the boiler was installed in 1960 era I have been instructed to use the orignal code allowables. Is this considered okay, why, or why not?
Reply:
It is my opinion that your question may be answered as follows:
First, the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) has the same position as that expressed by your Customer. There are several reasons why this is the normal case which are:
1) the requirements for nondestructive testing have changed
2) allowable design stresses are higher in current code
3) some current requirements were not known or considered in the 1960 era such as brittle transition at temperatures below 120°F.
I believe that the best approach is to work with the code of original construction, rather than using a later edition.
Robert D. Schueler, Jr.
Senior Staff Engineer
E-mail rschuele@nationalboard.org
Phone 614 431 3223 (direct line)
Phone 614 888 8320 Ext. 238
Fax 614 847 1828
I subsequently sent off the question to the NCIB for their interpretation of my customers request to be sure it was the correct approach. The following is the answer that I just received...
Date: 8/14/2008 11:56:17 AM
You have received email from --> David Harding
***************************************************************************
Questions:
I have a customer, in Canada, who is interested in raising the temperature of some existing boiler piping and I want to rerate the piping and do a stress analysis of the existing system. Since the boiler was installed in 1960 era I have been instructed to use the orignal code allowables. Is this considered okay, why, or why not?
Reply:
It is my opinion that your question may be answered as follows:
First, the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) has the same position as that expressed by your Customer. There are several reasons why this is the normal case which are:
1) the requirements for nondestructive testing have changed
2) allowable design stresses are higher in current code
3) some current requirements were not known or considered in the 1960 era such as brittle transition at temperatures below 120°F.
I believe that the best approach is to work with the code of original construction, rather than using a later edition.
Robert D. Schueler, Jr.
Senior Staff Engineer
E-mail rschuele@nationalboard.org
Phone 614 431 3223 (direct line)
Phone 614 888 8320 Ext. 238
Fax 614 847 1828
With all due respect, the National Board staff should NOT be interpreting the NBIC. As I mentioned, there is a current interpretation on this matter that was issued by the NBIC, not the National Board staff.
Second matter, is that you should be working directly with the Canadian jurisdiction on this matter and seek their input.
Second matter, is that you should be working directly with the Canadian jurisdiction on this matter and seek their input.
dahar
If I may jump in here, metengr has raised a point that I think needs clarification. Just because the plant was built in 1960 does not mean the "Code of Construction" was the 1960 Code; it may have been a prior version (depending on when the plant was designed).
To answer your direct question: My company has hard copies of all ASME Code versions, that were used to construct nuclear power plants in the US (and we're very protective of ensuring that we retain any version used). The earliest version that we have for B31.1 is 1955, but the next version is 1967. As a lot of the US nuclear power plants were built in the early 1960's, this would appear to indicate that there was not a "1960" version of B31.1; instead it was probably 1955.
Even so, I'm sure what you want to do is actually lay eyes on the Code, not just take someone on the Internet's word for it. (And I wouldn't have the authorization to send you a copy)
I would suggest first checking with your customer to see if they have a copy of the "Code of Contruction". If that doesn't work, I'd suggest a local library (or perhaps an Engineering School library). Also, you might try talking directly to ASME; I've always found them helpful. They would definitely be able to tell you the years that B31.1 was revised (i.e., is there a "1960 B31.1" or was the 1955 version the Code of Construction.
Finally, there are some websites that have been referenced in this forum that may have scanned and posted older versions of the Code.
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
If I may jump in here, metengr has raised a point that I think needs clarification. Just because the plant was built in 1960 does not mean the "Code of Construction" was the 1960 Code; it may have been a prior version (depending on when the plant was designed).
To answer your direct question: My company has hard copies of all ASME Code versions, that were used to construct nuclear power plants in the US (and we're very protective of ensuring that we retain any version used). The earliest version that we have for B31.1 is 1955, but the next version is 1967. As a lot of the US nuclear power plants were built in the early 1960's, this would appear to indicate that there was not a "1960" version of B31.1; instead it was probably 1955.
Even so, I'm sure what you want to do is actually lay eyes on the Code, not just take someone on the Internet's word for it. (And I wouldn't have the authorization to send you a copy)
I would suggest first checking with your customer to see if they have a copy of the "Code of Contruction". If that doesn't work, I'd suggest a local library (or perhaps an Engineering School library). Also, you might try talking directly to ASME; I've always found them helpful. They would definitely be able to tell you the years that B31.1 was revised (i.e., is there a "1960 B31.1" or was the 1955 version the Code of Construction.
Finally, there are some websites that have been referenced in this forum that may have scanned and posted older versions of the Code.
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
doberdorks
Mechanical
Dahar said:
Do you have a local jurisdiction? If so, I would ask them as well. They should have the final say.
SLH
athomas236
Mechanical
In his post dated 15 August metengr made the following statement.
Quote
There is an NBIC interpretation that original does NOT refer to the edition and year of the code of construction, it refers to the code of construction (ASME or other).
Unquote
My interpretation of this is say, for example a piping system was designed and installed in 1960 and that the ruling version of the B31.1 code was the 1955 edition, then if some one wanted to re-rate the same piping in 2008 the original code to be used for the re-rating work would be B31.1 but not the 1955 version, it would be the latest available version in 2008.
I agree with metengr that staff engineers should not be giving interpretations, that is the task of the committee or in an emergency, the Chairman of the committee.
athomas236
Quote
There is an NBIC interpretation that original does NOT refer to the edition and year of the code of construction, it refers to the code of construction (ASME or other).
Unquote
My interpretation of this is say, for example a piping system was designed and installed in 1960 and that the ruling version of the B31.1 code was the 1955 edition, then if some one wanted to re-rate the same piping in 2008 the original code to be used for the re-rating work would be B31.1 but not the 1955 version, it would be the latest available version in 2008.
I agree with metengr that staff engineers should not be giving interpretations, that is the task of the committee or in an emergency, the Chairman of the committee.
athomas236
I'm agreeing with the staff engineer.
If you rerate to the current version of the code, do you also redo all the NDE to today's standard??
At my plant, we've rerated existing piping using original code and original material allowables - unless we need to get current code type increased envelope benefits where we then recertify the piping to the current code by redoing the NDE and repairing welds as required.
Here's a question for you. Assume your old pipe hasn't experienced any corrosion or material degradation and you need to rerate the design pressure upwards. You do your calcs and they come up trumps. Now you need to do the hydrotest to confirm the rerate. Unfortunately the process has changed and water would be poisonous... is there any benefit in conducting a pnuematic test at 110% new DP if the test pressure is lower than the original hydrotest figure????
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Life! No one get's out of it alive."
"The trick is to grow up without growing old..."
If you rerate to the current version of the code, do you also redo all the NDE to today's standard??
At my plant, we've rerated existing piping using original code and original material allowables - unless we need to get current code type increased envelope benefits where we then recertify the piping to the current code by redoing the NDE and repairing welds as required.
Here's a question for you. Assume your old pipe hasn't experienced any corrosion or material degradation and you need to rerate the design pressure upwards. You do your calcs and they come up trumps. Now you need to do the hydrotest to confirm the rerate. Unfortunately the process has changed and water would be poisonous... is there any benefit in conducting a pnuematic test at 110% new DP if the test pressure is lower than the original hydrotest figure????
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Life! No one get's out of it alive."
"The trick is to grow up without growing old..."
The staff engineer is incorrect. There is a current interpretation by the NBIC on this very issue - original does NOT mean original edition and addenda.
Second, yes, you perform the NDT in accordance with the edition of the code you are re-rating.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question