Split repad efficiency 2

[Cluain]

Hello there,
I see that Compress provides an option for an efficiency for a split repad, Section VIII-I construction.
Since A^5 has no efficiency specified and interpretation file # BC90-404 asks "should the eff in A^1 be 70% if no RT is performed on the split repad" Answer "NO".
Should one elect 70% in compress when the seam of the repad is not x-rayed. Note: If ASME wanted one to take an efficiency of 70% on a split repad wouldn't they have Answered ((A^5) x.7) to the above referenced interpretation.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Cluain]

I should have said, If ASME wanted one to take an efficiency on a split repad wouldn't they have Answered ((A^5) x.65) to the above referenced interpretation.

 

[eliebl]

Here are a couple of informative articles published by the AIA in Alberta with respect to split reinforcing pads. I believe that California has followed Alberta's recommendations also.

http://www.absa.ca/IBIndex/IB05-004R1.pdf

http://www.absa.ca/IBIndex/IB05-005.pdf

Regards,
EJL

 

[jte]

I believe that California has followed Alberta's recommendations also.

No Circular Letter from the California Pressure Vessel Unit folks that I'm aware of... I know they are aware of the ABSA position but do not think they have issued any position statement of their own.

jt

 

[PVinspector]

Cluain,
Yes, 0.65 would more accurately represent the type of joint in a repad, if UW-12 rules applied. They do not, as the Code committee indicated quite clearly by the word "no".

Use 100% in Compress and don't lose any sleep over it.

Lau is the chief up in Alberta, so he can issue any directive he wants, and enforce it in his own jurisdiction. As an Authorized Inspector I make sure the split repad has enough bevel and/or gap depending on thickness to ensure a full-depth weld. Anything more than that, or de-rating the joint, or requiring x-ray, is nonsense. If there were any meaningful safety concerns with the split re-pad joint, the committee would have said "yes". End of story. The ABSA in Alberta has a long history of adding cost and time delays to approvals without increasing safety, just because they can. Canada has the short-man syndrome writ large, and that is not going to change anytime soon.

 

[eliebl]

I used to work for ABSA. I have to disagree with the statement regarding Alberta adding cost and time delays without increasing safety. With the large quantities of pressure equipment in Alberta and the large quantities still on the way to this province I am truely disappointed in the quality of designs coming from other jurisdictions. There is a serious lack of knowledge in the BPVC. To often I heard the phrase "that's what the software says".

The interpretation should be read to say that the 70% is an incorrect efficiency. That does not imply that the correct efficiency is 100%. The code committees seldomly expand on the anwers to the interpretations. Also, consider the jurisdiction where the equipment is to be located. They are the ones who call the shots.

My opinion only.
EJL

 

[Cluain]

Thanks to all who answered.
I do see the Canadian point of view; however, since ASME have not addressed this issue head on. I have to believe ASME feel their is no justification for mandating an efficiency for a repad.
Thanks again..

 

[Konrad]

FYI, it has been discussed here:

http://www.onetb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=86

Cheers
Konrad

 

[JoeTank]

PVInspector,
I've heard similar comments about ABSA, but I've heard that they do a great job too. So, I don't know who is right.

You stated... "The ABSA in Alberta has a long history of adding cost and time delays to approvals without increasing safety, just because they can. Canada has the short-man syndrome writ large, and that is not going to change anytime soon."

Dude, don't say that kind of stuff out loud here. That's good bar talk.

Joe Tank

 

[PVinspector]

Joe Tank,

I know, I was a little grumpy that day! I'm sure ABSA does good things, give me political power and I will too, but at what cost? I just get tired of US built ASME stamped equipment having to be 'reviewed' and 'blessed' by Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, the European Union, on and on, just for job security or trade wars. Like we have a lot of negligence and exploding boilers here in the USA, in the Land of Trial Lawyers. Fat chance. I guess we do the same thing here with our "state specials" for installing equipment to foreign Codes, but it gets old.

As they say on "The Sopranos," It is what it is.

It's Friday anyhow.

 

[Cluain]

I don’t want to be carrying the wood here. But I wonder where ABSA stand on a welded manway ring supplied as a UG-11 standard pressure part.
As for the EEC’s PED requirement, I do like the onus been on the manufacture to do exploratory work when designing a vessel for the EU.
Too many times ASME manufactures don't or won't ask the right questions and take it for granted that the Customer of a Customer of a Customer knows what is required for the service environment their vessel will operate in.
Have a good one!!

 

[vesselfab]

really?
hmmmmmmmmmm
I thought it was the buyer/engineer to state what the correct service was and the required materials for that service if anything special is required.

course,,,,I could be wrong about that.

you know, kind of like that Users Design Spec thing

 

[Cluain]

Your response is typical and precisely why I believe the onus should be on the manufacturer of ASME pressure vessels to be responsible for all exploratory work in regard to the service requirements their vessel/s are operating in.
I rest my case!!!!

 

[JoeTank]

Cluain,
I'm not sure you you have put your case to rest just yet. Most vessel manufacturer's have never owned or operated a process plant in which their vessels operate. They simply do not have any operating experience. Therefore, it is the owner/purchaser that must advise the manufactuirer of all of the service-related issues.

Joe Tank

 

[vesselfab]

Well, that is not going to happen.
Poor old dumb fabricators just can't do that complicated work like that Cluain.

 

[Cluain]

Now girls be nice.
This is suppose to be a professional forum.
Lets call it quits before we let ourselves down..
Have a good one…

 

[weed78]

Just to get back to the original topic, PVinspector is right on.
It may not be a nice thing to say, but unfortunately it is true, and sometimes truth hurts. Alberta has long considered itself as the savior of humanity by ever tightening controls for pressure equipment coming into its region. (Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely).
For some reason the pressure regulatory system in Alberta considers itself more special than those in the US, Middle East, and many other parts of the world.
Dare to have a conflicting opinion and be prepared to be cut down to size, and even "blacklisted". This is not just a cheap shot from me, I witnessed such disgusting behavior personally.
The fact is that the Code committee has investigated this issue and a lower efficiency is not required at this point in time, regardless of what Dr. Lau says.

 

[Konrad]

Cluain: you are 100% right, 97/23 is newer, thus built on bad experience of older stuff. Sending a sheet of paper with questions and having someone from the purchaser signed it off makes people ask themselves questions, otherwise called "think". Doesn't cost a penny, may save someone's skin.
Weed78: I agree, I too have my own, very bad experience with this people. But try sueing ABSA
PS. Once they didn't spot my mistake. The rest of Canada signed it off without reading, seeing that ABSA has already 'blessed' the paper!