VIII-1 (2023) material recertification by vessel manufacturer

[pperlich]

May material produced and marked (with full documentation) to a specification which IS permitted by this Division be recertified by the Certificate Holder (vessel/part manufacturer) to another specification which is also permitted by this Division following the process detailed by UG-10(a)?

Thank you.

Phil

http://www.quicktanks.com

 

[SJones]

What is the objective of the exercise?

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant

http://www.linkedin.com/in/drstevejones

All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.

 

[JStephen]

We've had a few occasions on non-ASME work where it was simpler to use SA 516 Grade 60 (exempt from impact testing) but only SA 516 Grade 70 was available. However, there is a fair bit of overlap in the material properties for each, and a fair bit of the Grade 70 will actually qualify as Grade 60 as well, though not marked as such.

 

[SJones]

So, no additional destructive, or nondestructive testing required?

Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant

http://www.linkedin.com/in/drstevejones

All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.

 

[JStephen]

Correct, just a matter of reviewing the material certs. I don't recall if ASME addresses this one way or the other.

 

[GD2]

JStephen,

Have you explored the dual certified SA 516 Gr 60/70 material?

GDD
Canada

 

[JStephen]

The cases in question were where the mill COULD have dual-certified but didn't.

 

[pperlich]

One such example would be to leverage higher allowable stress. In any event, the reason for recertifying material has no bearing on whether it is permitted or not. Are Sections II and VIII-1 silent on this issue? If so, I will submit an interpretation request.

Phil

http://www.quicktanks.com