Drawings supplied by reeves

[jordanleeds]

Now I'm familiar with large scale boiler construction methodology but I find it difficult to accept that the trade suppliers feel that it is acceptable to sell drawings that do not list the working or test pressure of a boiler on them . Am I perhaps wrong in this assumption that the calculations would of been already done at drawing stage?

[jackrae]

I would agree with you that it is totally unacceptable to produce boiler design or fabrication drawings that do not specify the Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP) for which the design has been produced. Similarly critical pressure components materials should also be specified.

[houstonceng]

The original " words and music" (as LBSC used to call the description of the locomotive, etc) would contain the MAWP. If the design was published in ME, or Pratical Mechanics, etc, that's where you'll find it.

Yes. I agree that the drawing of the boiler should have the MAWP somewhere on it, but there are many other instances where Model Engineering drawings don't conform to standard practice and many have stupid errors on then, however, many successful steam powered models have been built from these. All the time the drawings can be sold, no one is going to spend money updating them.

[jackrae]

May 2, 2016 12:19:41 GMT houstonceng said:

The original " words and music" (as LBSC used to call the description of the locomotive, etc) would contain the MAWP. If the design was published in ME, or Pratical Mechanics, etc, that's where you'll find it.


Yes. I agree that the drawing of the boiler should have the MAWP somewhere on it, but there are many other instances where Model Engineering drawings don't conform to standard practice and many have stupid errors on then, however, many successful steam powered models have been built from these. All the time the drawings can be sold, no one is going to spend money updating them.

Excuse me playing the devil's advocate

I agree with what you say but all it needs is a rubber stamp (with signature and date) from the supplier stating the MAWP for the drawings they are selling. (no need for redrafting)
They have a duty of care and surely cannot hide behind "standard practice and used for ages"

If an incident ever came to court I'm sure a not-too-clever QC would make mincemeat of a claim such as "yes I know the drawings don't state a MAWP but we've done it like that for ages" and at the end if the day, how is a prospective builder made aware of the MAWP unless he is working to a set of definitive instructions from the original journal.

[houstonceng]

I don't condone the practice, just restating the reason that many have written about in these fora and elsewhere.

[Shawki Shlemon]

Use any boiler plans in conjunction with Australia AMBSC code and select the operating pressure up to 100 psi , and adjust as required and have safety margin of 6 times .

[Jo]

Anyone considering making a boiler should take the plans to see their boiler inspector for approval before they start. The "plan" suppliers are only passing on what was given to them to sell. Often the "plans" were drawn up years ago before our current rules came into force.

Jo