Why can't this gas filter be exempt from ASME VIII?

[Stallionbreed]

In u-1(2) e in ASME VIII, it exempts "piping components" such as "strainers".

Mechanically, filters and strainers can be very similar.

However, this gas filter I'm looking at is ASME VIII stamped and i was told it isn't considered a "piping component". Can someone tell me why? thanks

https://winston-royalguard.com/gas-...-65bt-dry-gas-filters-natural-gas-filtration/

 

[MJCronin]

Here is my opinion:

In some countries and in some markets the ASME VIII stamp on fabricated components is looked at as a "mark of quality"

Quality, cerified materials were used with quality cerified welding procedures developed by an experienced engineering firm.

To the legions of psychotic MBAs and so called "Cost Engineers"... Yes, you will pay about 5 to 10% more

... and yes, you could save money by purchasing a "non-coded" component from China and the Third World

But the ASME Code Cerified component is the correct choice....IMHO

Anyone else ???

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[LittleInch]

A good question, but no one straight answer I'm afraid.

Size and volume some times have something to do with it as well as the fact that the design intention is to allow repeated entry into the inside, in this case via a time consuming removal of several large bolts...

But for what is essentially a component seemingly manufactured from readily available piping components - it could feasibly be considered a piping fabrication.

But people like to be able to quote a code or standard and ASME VIII is the only suitable one. There isn't, AFAIK, anything like ASME B 16.85 for filters and strainers so although it is probably too small to be classified as Pressure vessel, you can buy one which has been "designed", constructed and tested in accordance with ASME VIII. Makes everyone feel happy, warm and satisfied that their strainer isn't going to disintegrate one night shift...

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Stallionbreed]

@LittleInch

"as well as the fact that the design intention is to allow repeated entry into the inside, in this case via a time consuming removal of several large bolts..."

This is an interesting point that i haven't heard of before. It makes sense conceptually. Is this mentioned in a codes or industrial best practices?

 

[LittleInch]

Not really, but it's just common sense - pipe you bolt up and hopefully never unbolt again. Filters make it a bit unlikely that would happen so it has more stresses and forces on it that you would normally get. Of course most people would fit some sort of quick opening enclosures and they are ASME VIII.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[SnTMan]

Given: It is desired / required that the filter vessel be designed / constructed to a recognized Code.

Suppose then it were designed to piping Code B31.x. Shall it then be designed again under B31.y? B31.z?

It may be simpler to design per a pressure vessel Code. Just spitballng here

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[Stallionbreed]

@LittleInch

That makes sense thank you for providing information!

Thank you MJCronin and SnTMan as well

 

[Cobra17]

In Canada depending on what it is used for, if the volume is greater than 1.5 cu.ft. and the inside diameter is greater than 6" or , it must be designed to VIII-1 and registered as a pressure vessel per CSA B51 figure 1 b.

 

[weldstan]

I have seen plenty of owners/engineers require similar components to be U-stamped in the past. Possibly this was the case for the filter described.