New firebox - new test?

[ejparrott]

Oh boy....what a can of worms....

The engine owner and the top boiler inspector at the club have decided to give the engine a 2xWP hydraulic test, which will be with the engine fully built up with all its fittings. I was not party to that decision, but I'm happy with the decision, knowing that the engine will now have had a full test.

I've read everyone's comments, and re read all te paragrpahs in the green book that have been quoted, and in my opinion, the revamp of the green book has not covered this situation at all. In my opinion, there should be a section that covers such eventualities, or at least whats there needs clarifying. 9.5 for example is very vague, I mean, it says 'retest', but doesn't say which test.

I'll push the matter with NAME and see what they say, and perhaps make a mention that another club has been letting the engine run without carrying out another test. I think the test pressure argument is not an issue at that point, merely the fact that a test should have been done.

Meanwhile, I do think this is an interesting discussion that should continue until somebody somewhere makes an 'official' decision.

[Deleted]

Hello chaps---------------Has it been decided, is the boiler Copper or Steel ??....The "Boiler Management" is, in my opinion, far more crucial for Steel than for Copper ( for steel we have to include Winter layover protocols, driving style, water treatment maybe ??).....Given the total amount of work done to date ( and the subsequent "problems" it's given rise to),it's a pity the owner didn't have a completely new unit made.....wasn't it over 20 years old and showing signs of distress ?? ---hence the repairs??...Putting all rules and regs. aside for the moment then just because it's had ANY REPAIRS at all would indicate a test to 1.5 times WP if only for a check by the owner that said repairs are sound ??... He could always do a second test to 2 times WP if instructed by the "Authorities" at a later date........... The remaining original parts would have to have been tested to the same 1.5 WP sometime in the boilers' future anyway, even if there hadn't been any repairs done........Yes, it's certainly found a "slight weep" in the Rules and Regs....and generated a lot of the usual healthy discussions as well............. Agreed, it needs a clear and workable decision from those that are tasked with that sort of thing... So hurry-up guys and let's get this boiler back on the track !!

[ejparrott]

Steel...did I not say what the material was?? Sorry!!

[ejparrott]

Found the answer....In my opnion...item 7.3 on the WSE, says something about repairs and the initial test pressure....that says to me 2xWP

(not got the certs at home to quote word for word)

[ejparrott]

Copied from the online WSE on the NAME website:

7.3 This test is valid for the life of the boiler unless the boiler is subject to repair or modification which would affect the structural integrity of the boiler. In this case the boiler shall be
subject to a retest to the values indicated as the Initial hydraulic pressure test.

Initial to me is the shell test, or 2xWP