Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / SA-105 VS. A-105 For ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1
- - By insp76 (**) Date 08-16-2007 00:00
We have a pressure vessel contructed in 1977 to ASME Section VIII Div. 1 and the U-1 states the use of SA- 105 materials for all Flange components. In contrary; the construction drawing states the use of A -105.

While conducting an API 510 Inspection I noticed 3 of the flanges that are welded to shell nozzles are stamped A-105 not SA-105.

My question is of course; is this acceptable?
If not acceptable what is the code reference that states this?

I did find a little info in National Board but I need iron clad out of compliance documentation before I break the news to the client.

Thanks in advance for the great help
Parent - - By NDTIII (***) Date 08-16-2007 06:06
I believe it is the same material. SA-105 is an ASTM spec whereas A-105 is the ASME spec. It is for fittings.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-16-2007 09:56
NDTIII, you are mostly correct, the ASTM's and ASME SA's contain a statement at the top of most standards that proclaim one to be identical with the other, in fact, in most cases, ASME purchases a license from ASTM to use their standards with an ASME heading.  There are, on occasion, however some "tweaks" or additional requirements ASME imposes, not often but they do happen.  Also, in many cases, for your fabricated item to be code stamped with an ASME Stamp, the material must be SA type material.  I don't believe ASME VIII mandates SA materials however, please correct me if wrong.
Parent - By NDTIII (***) Date 08-18-2007 05:19
No You're right. But I should have more clear I was actually referring to ASME Sec. IX and II.
Parent - By chall (***) Date 08-16-2007 11:46
The only way to know whether the two materials are identical is to check the two standards (A and SA 105) from the time frame the vessel was constructed.  The basis for this statement is my assumption that at some point in the past, the two standards became identical.  I'm not sure when that was, but there is a statement of that fact on the first page of the standard when it is so.

A simpler path may be to discuss the diparity with your AI and see if you can come to terms on accepting the vessel with the materials as is.  Based on the design parameters and service the vessel will be used for, it may be a discrepancy that may be accepted "as is".

Charles.
Parent - - By new tito (***) Date 08-16-2007 13:00
1st let me start off by answering jon.  ASME sec VIII does mandate the use of SA materials

To insp76...WOW!  Seems your in a little delima here.  Obviously there is a descrepancy between the data report and the actual vessel.  My guess is that the flanges were not verified during receiving inspection, and just fell through the cracks on that one. 

As to the acceptability??  Obviously the markings on there clearly do not meet sec VIII requirements.  This should have been caught and fixed before hand, and I'm sure had the AI seen it, either the flanges would have come off or possibly the material could have been accepted by the mfg and AI, but in that case the data report should still have listed the correct material spec.

For a code reference, look at part UG of sec VIII.  There are numerous paragraphs on materials to be used.  It does specifically state that materials in section II shall be used, but gives provisions for materials not conforming to sec II.  You may need to dig deep to find your answer.  Also look in section part A under SA-105.  Current edition states product marking "Identification marks consisting of manufacturers symbol or name.......this specification number.....".  This statement to me clearly says that SA-105 shall be marked on the flanges.

As the inspector, I would 1st find out for sure if the flanges are in violation of the ORIGINAL code edition, and then go from there.  It might not be a bad idea to contact the original authorized inspection agency to get their take on it.  
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-16-2007 14:22
When I worked in a pressure vessel shop, A105 was acceptable for vessels designed and built to ASME Section VIII, but not stamped. Vessels that required a "U" stamp used SA-105 flanges. To make life more interesting, we had projects that were shipped to locations that did not require ASME stamps, but they did want the AI to witness the hydro and perform verification inspections.

Just remember what the letters in "ASME" stands for; Always, Sometimes, Maybe, and Except. There are enough "weasle" words in the codes to get around many "requirements". That's what' so interesting about using ASME Codes. Every reference in ASME has several subordinate paragraphs that need to be reviewed to see if there are exceptions that may apply to this construction. As suggested, you would have to review the edition of the code that applied when the contract for the vessel was signed.

Do you know if any "repairs or modifications" have been made, both authorized or unauthorized? The original vessel could have been manufactured correctly, and then modified by someone that was not as concerned with the ASME code requirements because of a non-code application or used where ASME has no jurisdiction (has not been adopted by local or state government).

Good luck - Al
Parent - - By chall (***) Date 08-16-2007 14:27
Although the markings do not meet code requirements, the material may be acceptable.  One way or the other, a review of the applicable standards (from the proper era) will help resolve the matter.

If the material specifications were identical when the components were installed; I believe you can write an NCR identifying the discrepancy and accept the material "as is" based on the fact that they are identical.  I work with a very sharp AI, who holds us to the letter of the code (as we should be held) and he would definitely accept that resolution.

If the materials are not identical, you have two options:  try to do some meaningful engineering to prove the material is suitable (thin chance of success); replace the material (simple, but maybe costly).

The fact that the drawing and U1 are in conflict is not unusual.  The fact that the U1 indicates SA105 and the material is A105 really isn't that unusual for a vessel manufactured in the mid 70's. 

I'm not advocating ignoring the situation, I just don't think it's a serious material substitution.  There are still a vast number of people involved in the industry, who today, do not understand material specifics to the degree that they can distinguish between A and SA material specifications.  It is further complicated by codes such as B31.1 which include the use of ASTM materials in the Appendix covering material stress values.

Charles
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-16-2007 14:31
I'm loving Al's response, how right you are brother!
Parent - - By insp76 (**) Date 08-16-2007 18:44
I really appreciate all the responses and I had a feeling it wasn`t going to be a cut and dry answer.
My next move will be to inform the AI of this issue and let him decide the action if any.
The main thing is I will maybe set a presidence for future reference on a simmillar issue.
If the AI  decides to repair the nozzles I will want to see clear code reference of non compliance.
If he says it`s ok I will still want clear code reference showing compliance.
As alway I want to see it in black in white.

Thanks, and regards to all
Parent - By chall (***) Date 08-17-2007 14:55
Just a small suggestion when informing your AI of the situation:  As the stamp holder, decisions and corrective actions are your responsibility.  Your AI has the role of accepting or rejecting what you propose.  Many times the tendency is to rely on the AI for the solution.  The solution is not his responsibility. 

In a good relationship with the AI, you will learn to rely on him or her for discussions during the planning or problem resolution.  However there is a definite distinction in roles.  The stamp holder is responsible for all decisions.

I'm not tying to tell you how to run your business, just offering a little insight.

Charles
Parent - By dbigkahunna (****) Date 08-17-2007 21:28
If you conducted the inspection, according to API, you are the AI? If you are working under a 510 then the by 510 the 510AI and a qualified engineer can accept the flanges without any alteration. This would need to be documented in the vessel inspection records. But I believe you will find A and SA are equivalent.
BABRT's
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-17-2007 01:01
I'm glad I was able to give you a chuckle John.

Sometimes that's the best you can do working with these codes.

Best regards - Al
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / SA-105 VS. A-105 For ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill