|
|
Post by ejparrott on Mar 29, 2013 17:33:57 GMT
Here's one I can't decide.
One of our 7 1/4" engine owners has had a new firebox welded in to his boiler commercially after the old failed, and obviously new tubes rolled in as well. He's come to us asking if we'll let him run, and apparently he has a certificate from the insurance company (I think thats what he said) showing a hydraulic test has been carried out. Another railway is happy for him to run, however I'm not so certain. The test pressure was 1.5xWP, which I think is wrong anyway, I think it should be 2xWP as its half a new boiler anyway.
Also 8.2 states that commercial boilers issued with certificates must be tested to 1.5xWP before they are allowed to run.
Should he have a re-test at 1.5xWP, or 2xWP even, before he's allowed to run, and should the other club be letting him run?
|
|
jackrae
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,333
|
Post by jackrae on Mar 29, 2013 18:39:06 GMT
My interpretation of the green book ties in with yours. The boiler is effectively a "new" build and as such should be proof tested at 2xWP. Then hydraulically tested at 1.5xWP once all attachments are fitted.
As to the "other club" : what they do is their business but they do not seem to be complying with the green book code of practice.
However, any code of practice can be ignored providing a superior code is exercised instead; but I fail to see, from the information you have given, the superior practice.
|
|
waggy
Statesman
Posts: 744
|
Post by waggy on Mar 29, 2013 19:03:28 GMT
Sections 8.4 and 9.5 of the "Green Book" deal with repairs and modification. I would say that a 1.5xWP test would suffice providing the initial ex repair test was at 2xWP with the boiler dismounted. The certificate should also state the reason for the test, ie, repair.
As ever though, if you or your club are uncertain about him running, say no! The onus is always on the owner to prove the boiler is fully certified and safe to use.
Perhaps a word with the other club's inspector might help clarify matters?
Waggy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ejparrott on Mar 29, 2013 21:10:10 GMT
Waggy the information I've been given is that the boiler has only had a 1.5xWP test, boiler on or off I don't yet know. We have so far said no, not until we've seen a certificate, or copy of.
Jackrae to the best of my knowledge the other club is a Southern Fed club and abides by the green book, I will make enquiries.
|
|
waggy
Statesman
Posts: 744
|
Post by waggy on Mar 30, 2013 9:50:56 GMT
Morning ejparrott, Perhaps you could let us know how you go on with this one? The more my fellow inspectors and I get involved with the green book, the more questions we find to ask! Not the cut and dried issue I was hoping for. At present we're looking at the 1999 pressure regs as I'm told one section states that boilers under two litres capacity shouldn't be CE marked? If so section 6.4 certainly needs clarification. Regards, Waggy.  |
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,901
|
Post by jma1009 on Mar 30, 2013 10:08:04 GMT
hi Ed,
new tubes and firebox constitute more than a 'repair'!
if the boiler is being pumped up to 1.5 x WP anyway whatever your interpretation of the rules i would want it pumped up to 2 x WP. you cant take any chances with boilers (especially if this is an old steel boiler). this boiler obviously had some serious problems and there must be some doubt about the original standard of construction. any reasonable owner should not mind in the least his boiler being submitted for a club test to whatever test pressure up to and including 2 x WP.
cheers,
julian
|
|
jackrae
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,333
|
Post by jackrae on Mar 30, 2013 12:01:27 GMT
It's a bit like my favourite hammer that I've owned for the past 60 years. In that time it's only needed 4 new shanks and a new head, but it's still the same old hammer  It's also worth considering the old adage "rules are for the guidance of wise men" Irrespective of what a rule book may, or may not say, an inspector should also exercise common sense and good judgement, on the basis that the rules written by the authors may not be fully prescriptive. In many cases a lack of prescription may well be beneficial as it permits sufficient leeway for the application of good judgement. Remember it's a "Code of Practice" not a document enshrined in statute - even if parts of it do refer to a statutory document.. As far as I am concerned, if a boiler has had a major, structural rebuild, then a proof test (2xWP) is required. At the end of the day, it's the inspector's call. |
|
|
|
Post by ejparrott on Mar 30, 2013 18:40:32 GMT
The main shell of the boiler must be 20 to 30 years old by now. I gave this boiler a 1 year ticket only about 2 years ago, because I was concerned about a damp patch in the firebox that I couldn't account for. 2 months later and the owner discovered it was leaking steam. He's had the boiler professionally removed, repaired and rebuilt, and thinking about it the minimum it must have had is new tubes, new firebox, new foundation ring and new stays, which only leaves the outers and front tubeplate. I'm very firmly of the opinion that that amount of work constitutes a test to 2xWP, its not like it was just a retube.
I'm waiting on a copy of the paperwork, then I'll pose the question to NAME to check.
|
|
|
|
Post by fostergp6nhp on Mar 30, 2013 20:07:12 GMT
Full size would involve a full test AFAIK. I will make a few enquiries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2013 21:30:36 GMT
At present we're looking at the 1999 pressure regs as I'm told one section states that boilers under two litres capacity shouldn't be CE marked I've looked through the PER 1999 and can't find anything to support that statement. It's 69 pages of Eurononsense so I could have missed it, perhaps the person who told you can elaborate? |
|
|
|
Post by RGR 60130 on Mar 30, 2013 22:36:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Boadicea on Mar 31, 2013 11:00:53 GMT
My interpretation of the green book ties in with yours. The boiler is effectively a "new" build and as such should be proof tested at 2xWP. Then hydraulically tested at 1.5xWP once all attachments are fitted. Agree. I have a hammer like yours too. Why not just test it at 2X anyway. If you think it will fail at between 1.5 and 2, will you want to sit next to it? |
|
nonort
Part of the e-furniture
If all the worlds a Stage someone's nicked the Horses
Posts: 277 
|
Post by nonort on Mar 31, 2013 11:08:07 GMT
Lets be honest here I would pump it up to 2X WP with the fittings on the safety factor built into the boiler and its fittings means that it can do no harm. If you take the premiss that the boiler is good enough to sit behind then you should have no problems with this, bearing in mind that the boiler will be in service for many years to come corrosion will be a bigger problem in the future. Fact is the boiler should be treated as new or the work carried out on the firebox would have been a waste of time. If the outer shell is paper thin.
|
|
|
|
Post by maunsell on Mar 31, 2013 11:08:15 GMT
My view on this boiler is that it has had a repair affecting its structural integrity, therefore requires a full hydraulic test as in a new boiler. The question to me is, if it has had an insurance company examination and therefore a commercial certificate issued by an engineer surveyor it would be normal I believe for it to be a 1.5x WP valid for up to 10 years. If the club then require a 2x WP ticket, I would ask the owner to obtain authority from his repair company to carry out this higher pressure test. This is how my club dealt with this situation with a new boiler with a commercial ticket. I would not be willing to accept responsibility to just over rule the professionally issued certificate for a variety of reasons.
|
|
jackrae
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,333
|
Post by jackrae on Mar 31, 2013 12:47:10 GMT
My view on this boiler is that it has had a repair affecting its structural integrity, therefore requires a full hydraulic test as in a new boiler. The question to me is, if it has had an insurance company examination and therefore a commercial certificate issued by an engineer surveyor it would be normal I believe for it to be a 1.5x WP valid for up to 10 years. If the club then require a 2x WP ticket, I would ask the owner to obtain authority from his repair company to carry out this higher pressure test. This is how my club dealt with this situation with a new boiler with a commercial ticket. I would not be willing to accept responsibility to just over rule the professionally issued certificate for a variety of reasons. But the code of practice (NAME Green Book) upon which our club insurances are based states that a repair will require a repeat of the proof test. It does not state that a test certificate issued by some other authority (however well respected they may be) at a pressure lower than our own code demands, shall take precedence and permit the club to ignore its own code of practice. Paragraphs 7.6 and 12.5a relate. |
|
|
|
Post by maunsell on Mar 31, 2013 13:12:43 GMT
I do not disagree with reply No 14, and in fact clause 8, and particularly clause 8.4 deal with commercially built and I would interpret modification also as a repair.
What I am saying and will repeat is that as a club Boiler Inspector I would not take the responsibility of over ruling an insurance companies Engineer Surveyor (if this is the case in this instance), and standby that I would require the owner to obtain authority from the repair company to carry out a 2xWP test. Not a problem as I see it!
One does have to be careful that in over ruling a professional Engineer Surveyor without authority can be construed as casting doubt on his professional integrity with all that that might imply.
|
|
|
|
Post by RGR 60130 on Mar 31, 2013 13:58:02 GMT
In my experience on ships I have found that the testing regime adopted by professionals is subject to discussion and mutual agreement between all concerned (owner's representative, repair company, insurer's surveyor).
In one instance we chopped a 1 meter square piece out of a steam drum due to localised pitting and welded in a new piece. The pressure test after that was 1.2 x working pressure. The reason we agreed on this was that the pressure test envelope would have to include a lot of older parts of the boiler and could have a detrimental effect and, most importantly, our primary test method for the repair was radiography of the weld. As the old saying goes, there's more ways of killing a pig than by loving it to death (or something like that any way).
In this case I'd just send a scan of the test certificate for the testing that's been done to the insurers and let them decide if they're happy.
Reg
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2013 20:56:25 GMT
Thanks Reg, that's very interesting. The document (HSE Safe operation of pressure systems for the model engineer, if anyone hasn't followed the link) does indeed say only boilers over 2 litres need to be CE marked. So, back to the PER 1999. I've read it again, and would now agree that you can draw the same conclusion, although it isn't stated in so many words. Table 5 shows the bar-litre categories for boilers - those below 5 bar pressure don't come under the regs, and under 2 litres capacity don't come into any bar-litre category. Instead you are referred to regulation 9 clause 2, and this states that equipment in this category only has to comply with sound engineering practice, and must not be CE marked. The 'green book' seems to get around this by the use of weasel words. Clauses 6.4 and 8.1 both talk about ' appropriate CE marking'. It doesn't say all commercially made boilers must be CE marked, so it would seem that CE marking a boiler of less than 2 litres is 'not appropriate'. I wonder if the HSE will update their document? It was written in 2004, when we still had the 'red book', and implies that the latter was perfectly acceptable as a WSE. |
|
|
|
Post by Boadicea on Apr 1, 2013 10:15:29 GMT
I am with Jack. - Wherever this boiler has come from it has had a structural repair and is possibly modified.
- It has arrived at a club.
- The club regime is to test under the green book
- Therefore test at 2X as stated in the green book if it is to be run at the club.
Simples! I am not sure what there is to talk about. |
|
|
|
Post by houstonceng on Apr 1, 2013 11:05:26 GMT
Boadicea
If the boiler has been tested to 2 X wp by the repairer, it has - effectively - had it's "initial test" and you should (and can only) do one "initial test". Once it arrives at the MES, the Boiler Inspector should only then carry out a maximum 1.5 X test.
Of course, with such a major rebuild I afgree that someone should do a 2 X hydro test.
|
|
