• Sign In or Create Account
Provided by ASME The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASME.ORG
Groups People Volunteer Leadership
Home
HOME > Pressure Vessels & Piping Division > Pressure Vessels & Piping Division - Technical Committee

Official ASME Group

Pressure Vessels & Piping Division - Technical Committee

This online group is currently inactive. If you would like to reactivate it, please contact asmecommunity@asme.org.
This online group is currently inactive. If you would like to reactivate it, please contact asmecommunity@asme.org.
See Less
+ Join Group

Request Access

Group
Pressure Vessels & Piping Division - Technical Committee
Message (optional)
Send

Thank you.

Your request has been sent. You should be hearing from a site administrator shortly.

Done
5
  • Activity Feed
  • Resources

Subgroups

  • Codes & Standards
  • Computer Technology
  • Design and Analysis
  • Fluid Structure Interaction
  • High Pressure Technology
  • Materials & Fabrication
  • Operations,Applications,and Components
  • Seismic Engineering
Joined Newsletter
Your email has been added to this group's newsletter mailing list.
Add Photo

Let us know who’s talking! Click 'Continue' to login and post in this Group.

If you are a Community Participant but haven’t joined this Group yet, you’ll be automatically added so you can share your thoughts once you log in.

Not a Community Participant yet? Sign up here.


You haven’t joined this Group yet!

Click 'Continue' to be automatically added to the Group so you can share your thoughts.


Cancel
Posted Image
Rafael Ybarra
Dear all, could you suggest a catalog for standard fittings selection?

I’m looking perhaps for elbows, threaded connectors or joints for pipe sizes up top 3/4’’ made of stainless steel to carry liquid fluids.

Thanks, I will appreciate your help.
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Jun 09 2018 3:19 PM
sanghoon lee | Aug 03 2020 8:3 PM
Dear all
I asked some questions to "asmecommunity@asme.org" , but there is no response. So That's why I leave message here.

I have 3 questions for the material of liquid hydrogen vessel (tank).

As you know well, SUS 304 or 316 are usually used for the cryogenic liquid hydrogen tank.
We are planning to apply this tank material as Ti-alloys instead of SUS.

The questions are below.
1) Are there Ti alloy candidates that meet the asm
sanghoon lee | Aug 03 2020 8:5 PM
The questions are below.
1) Are there Ti alloy candidates that meet the asme regulations?
  Or can Ti-6Al-4V alloy be used as a hydrogen storage tank? (Is there any trend to use Ti-alloys?)
 
2) When using Ti alloy, what is criterior to meet  ASME regulation?
 for example, what kind of mechnical test we need and its value.

3) If there is no ASME regulation yet, is there any kind of Ti alloys certified by Europe or other institutions?

I would be very grateful i get the answer.

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Rafael Ybarra
Dear all, could you suggest a catalog for standard pipe fittings selection?

I’m looking perhaps for elbows, threaded connectors or joints for pipe sizes up top 3/4’’ made of stainless steel to carry liquid fluids.

Thanks and I will appreciate your help.
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Jun 09 2018 3:19 PM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Rafael Ybarra
Dear all, could you suggest a catalog for standard pipe fittings selection?

I’m looking perhaps for elbows, threaded connectors or joints for pipe sizes up top 3/4’’ made of stainless steel to carry liquid fluids.

Thanks and I will appreciate your help.
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Jun 09 2018 3:18 PM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Felix Olivares

I am currently in the realization of radiographs for the release of 6 tanks according to API 650. Code that requires the use of IQI type holes.
At the moment the following concern arises to me, At the time of the accomplishment of the x-rays in the seams in T with different thicknesses, how many IQI are required?
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Apr 03 2018 11:19 PM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Mr Khalid Mohammed Yaseen
Dear Members,

I'd like to share with you a technical issues in a project I'm working in. A fire fighting piping system 20" diameter distributed in to all project's area (Tank farm area, Building area, also on pip rack) they are already completed and no one was following the construction team and no QC (never been inspected or tested by NDT), and all welders are not have been tested for the qualification (WPQ) also the WPS not have been made. the material is CS A105.
what should the QC Engineer/Inspector do for the assessment, quality and integrity of this piping system,
what are the requirements, principals and standards should the QC follow?
FYI the system is new construction and not have been put in-service.
Waiting for your technical and professional advises.

Best Regards

Khalid
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Mar 17 2018 5:53 AM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Mr Ibrain Madriz Sr, ME
Regards,
Radiography examination in D fluid serrvice
taking in advance of this theme about examination for D fluid service. I need a clarification about radiography requirements, consulting B 31.3 , 1996 and 1999 rev , this topic is very clear in table 341.3.2 but in 2008 rev the table is different and it does not very clear to me.
We need o we dont need radiography for this service.? The code has not change this aspect?
Thanks for your attention
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Jul 14 2015 11:14 PM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Sunil Javed Paramban
I would like to clarify few points on the interpretation 16-01 of ASME B http://31.3- Para 341.3.4 Progressive examination.

The question for Interpretation 16-01 is:

In accordance with ASME B 313.3-1996 Edition, Progressive examination, if the defective weld is repaired and found defective again, repaired a second time and again found to be defective, is it necessary to examine two additional items for each failed repair?

And the answer is "No. See Para 341.3.3"

Para 341.3.3 says, Defective Components and Workmanship. An examined item with one or more defects (imperfections of a type or magnitude exceeding the acceptance criteria of this Code) shall be repaired or replaced; and the new work shall be reexamined by the same methods, to the same extent, and by the same acceptance criteria as required for the original work.

I have 2 queries :

1. The above Para does not deal about the progressive examination, however specified that the repaired joint shall be re-examined by the same methods, to the same extent, and by the same acceptance criteria as required for the original work. And if the evaluation of the repair joint is as same as the original work, the requirement of progressive examination according to Para 341.3.4. also applicable for the repaired joint. Please clarify..

2. If the defective weld is repaired by different welder #2 and not the original welder #1, and produced a new indication more than acceptable limit (repair), the same evaluation answer for the interpretation 16-01 is applicable? Or the progressive examination for the welder # 2 will be applicable?

appreciated, if anyone can clarify the interpretation of the above.
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Jul 08 2014 12:16 AM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Sunil Javed Paramban
I would like to clarify few points on the interpretation 16-01 of ASME B http://31.3- Para 341.3.4 Progressive examination.

The question for Interpretation 16-01 is:

In accordance with ASME B 313.3-1996 Edition, Progressive examination, if the defective weld is repaired and found defective again, repaired a second time and again found to be defective, is it necessary to examine two additional items for each failed repair?

And the answer is "No. See Para 341.3.3"

Para 341.3.3 says, Defective Components and Workmanship. An examined item with one or more defects (imperfections of a type or magnitude exceeding the acceptance criteria of this Code) shall be repaired or replaced; and the new work shall be reexamined by the same methods, to the same extent, and by the same acceptance criteria as required for the original work.

I have 2 queries :

1. The above Para does not deal about the progressive examination, however specified that the repaired joint shall be re-examined by the same methods, to the same extent, and by the same acceptance criteria as required for the original work. And if the evaluation of the repair joint is as same as the original work, the requirement of progressive examination according to Para 341.3.4. also applicable for the repaired joint. Please clarify..

2. If the defective weld is repaired by different welder #2 and not the original welder #1, and produced a new indication more than acceptable limit (repair), the same evaluation answer for the interpretation 16-01 is applicable? Or the progressive examination for the welder # 2 will be applicable?

appreciated, if anyone can clarify the interpretation of the above.
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Jul 08 2014 12:10 AM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Saravanan Koomidi Annadurai shared Saravanan Koomidi Annadurai's Post

1. As per the scope defined in ASME B31.4 Fig 400.1.1-1 we can use the pipeline code inside the Tank Terminal. If we use ASME B31.4 for Tank Terminal with Pumping station, can it be a manned area or it should be an unmanned area ?
2. Can we use ASME 31.4 on onsite Tank and pumping station where there are other auxiliary facilities like Power Station, Control Building, Substation, booster pumps, Main oil transfer pumps near by but within the main facility boundary ?.

  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (0)
Jan 21 2014 11:04 PM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Posted Image
Saravanan Koomidi Annadurai
1. As per the scope defined in ASME B31.4 Fig 400.1.1-1 we can use the pipeline code inside the Tank Terminal. If we use ASME B31.4 for Tank Terminal with Pumping station, can it be a manned area or it should be an unmanned area ?
2. Can we use ASME 31.4 on onsite Tank and pumping station where there are other auxiliary facilities like Power Station, Control Building, Substation, booster pumps, Main oil transfer pumps near by but within the main facility boundary ?.
  • Recommend (0)
  • Share (1)
Jan 16 2014 8:54 AM

Characters remaining: 500

Cancel
Flag this for inappropriate content.

Let us know who’s talking! Click 'Continue' to login and post in this Group.

If you are a Community Participant but haven’t joined this Group yet, you’ll be automatically added so you can share your thoughts once you log in.

Not a Community Participant yet? Sign up here.


You haven’t joined this Group yet!

Click 'Continue' to be automatically added to the Group so you can share your thoughts.


Continue
Cancel
  • Home
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • About This Site
  • Community Rules
© 2021 The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. All rights reserved.