ASME name plate

john · **Joined:** Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:19 am **Posts:** 3

The letter HT or PHT shall be applied under the Code Symbol as per ug-116.
My question is :
PWHT is required by the contract or the client, but it is exempted as per the Code, whether or not the letter HTor PHT need to applied?

Thanks in advance.

Jackal · **Posted:** Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:02 pm

Quote:

..................but it is exempted as per the Code....................

PWHT stamping may be exempt for Section VIII-1, but not for Section IX WPS qualification See QW-407

Gonzaga · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2001 1:00 am **Posts:** 656

Jackal wrote:

Quote:

..................but it is exempted as per the Code....................

PWHT stamping may be exempt for Section VIII-1, but not for Section IX WPS qualification See QW-407

I am afraid you are wrong
Quote UG-116
(f)(1) The letters HT shall be applied under the Code
Symbol when the complete vessel has been postweld heat
treated as provided in UW-10.

Quote UW-10
Pressure vessels and pressure vessel parts shall be postweld
heat treated as prescribed in UW-40 when postweld
heat treatment is required in the applicable part of Subsection C

If not required in the applicable part of Subsection C (UCS-56) HT shall not be applied.
Regards. Mauro

Jackal · **Posted:** Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:31 pm

Hmmm... somehow Mauro, my answer was lost in your translation....you have agreed with me and I agree with you. Particularly your last statement... which is.....

Quote:

If not required in the applicable part of Subsection C (UCS-56) HT shall not be applied. Regards. Mauro

The case presented by "john" states it was not required per the applicable part of subsection C...

Gonzaga · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2001 1:00 am **Posts:** 656

Jackal wrote:

Hmmm... somehow Mauro, my answer was lost in your translation....you have agreed with me and I agree with you. Particularly your last statement... which is.....

Quote:

If not required in the applicable part of Subsection C (UCS-56) HT shall not be applied. Regards. Mauro

The case presented by "john" states it was not required per the applicable part of subsection C...

Good. Actually I always find difficult to understand you when you write: "first statement right second wrong" :oops:

mauro

Jackal · **Posted:** Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:41 pm

Okay, time for a new signature...how about this one....
A question properly stated is a question half solved.

Dr. Koelbl · **Posted:** Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:29 pm

I agree with Mauro as well.
Just want to add that the MDR shall state all PWHT that has been performed, regardless if required or not, if HT stamped or not.

DK

john · **Joined:** Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:19 am **Posts:** 3

Dear all,
I also agree with Mauro. But the current problem is that PHT has been applied.
Is it acceptable if the extent of PWHT be noted on MDR & remark this PWHT is not the Code requirments? Is it a big problem if NB registered this vessel ?

Best regards
John

Gonzaga · **Joined:** Sat Dec 15, 2001 1:00 am **Posts:** 656

No problem at all.
Regards.
MG

ASME name plate

Who is online