VIII-1 "Part" Question. 1

[Christine74]

If a manufacturer fabricates a "Part" per ASME Section VIII Div. 1, is it advisable to attach a nameplate with the design conditions listed on it, or would it be better just to apply a stamping and let the owner/user consult the original nameplate/U-1 for the design conditions? It seems to me like there could be potential problems either way.

If a nameplate is attached, should the nameplate only read "PART", or should it also include the "RT-1" if it is fully radiographed and the "HT" stress relieved?

Thanks,

-Christine

 

[qualityManager]

In my experiance, the following has applied:

1)The "part" stamping should not contain any design info (because the end assembler is responsible for the complete design, which is included on the final stamping and U-1 report). Also, the "part" design info is on the U-2 report only if the part manufacturer has performed a design function for that part. Otherwise, be sure to say something along the lines of "CompanyXYZ has performed no design function." in the remarks of the U-2 form.

2)Do not include any additional marks on the part for RT or HT (but be sure to properly define on the U-2 whatever RT or HT was done to the part). Again, these designations are the responsibility of the manufacturer of the completed vessel.

See UG-116(h) for the part nameplate contents: the code symbol, the manufacturers name (certified by), and serial number. Thats it. No more, no less.

I have seen some parts manufacturers use the "W" letter to notate welded construction, but am fairly certain this is not a code requirement for parts stamping.

If you have access to ASME interpretations, see also interpretation VIII-1-95-47 (File BC94-412) which addressess these issues.

Cheers,
WRW

 

[GatorOne]

Well said QualityManager. Along the same line of thinking, if "design" work is done, how to reconcile the Code used in the part (say the latest) with the Code that the original assembly was made to (say an earlier edition)? It is easy to design the part to the new Code but it is also possible that there may be conflicts with the rest of the assembly, i,e, new material stresses vs old, etc.

 

[qualityManager]

GatorOne makes an interesting point which applies to repair/alteration activities. I am only familiar with NBIC type repairs, although I understand there are other repair standards available (API, etc.).

NBIC repair would have the construction of the repair (and any replacement parts) "...conform, insofar as possible, to the section and edition of the code most applicable to the work..." (RC-1020). See also RC-1050 for what part markings and certificates are required.

The NBIC also has an interpretation number 98-14 which addresses new material stresses in older constructions, and rerating of vessels based on higher stresses. I won't go into it here because it's a lenghty bit of text, but it does spell out the repair organization resposiblities and what can and can't be done fairly clearly.

Of course, check juristictional requirements first.

Cheers,
WRW

 

[GatorOne]

Good points once again qualityManager. Two options seem viable to me: 1. Both 'new' part and old assembly conform to the OLD version of the Code or 2. Both 'new' part and old assembly conform to the NEW version of the Code. Option 2 may be impossible if the old assembly was built using design constraints from an earlier version no longer compatible with the new Code update. Option 1 may be impossible if the original code is very old and consequently hard to find the applicable rules. It should be interesting to know what others have done 'out there'.