A Quick Guide to API 510 Certified Pressure Vessel Inspector Syllabus

Example Questions and Worked Answers

Clifford Matthews

• Editore: Woodhead Publishing
• Anno: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780857091024
• Argomento: Design
• Categoria: Industrial Design

The API Individual Certification Programs (ICPs) are well established worldwide in the oil, gas, and petroleum industries. This Quick Guide is unique in providing simple, accessible and well-structured guidance for anyone studying the API 510 Certified Pressure Vessel Inspector syllabus by summarizing and helping them through the syllabus and providing multiple example questions and worked answers.Technical standards are referenced from the API 'body of knowledge' for the examination, i.e. API 510 Pressure vessel inspection, alteration, rerating; API 572 Pressure vessel inspection; API RP 571 Damage mechanisms; API RP 577 Welding; ASMEVIII Vessel design; ASMEV NDE; and ASME IX Welding qualifications.

• Provides simple, accessible and well-structured guidance for anyone studying the API 510 Certified Pressure Vessel Inspector syllabus
• Summarizes the syllabus and provides the user with multiple example questions and worked answers
• Technical standards are referenced from the API 'body of knowledge' for the examination

Chapter 1

Interpreting ASME and API Codes

Passing the API ICP examination is, unfortunately, all about interpreting codes. As with any other written form of words, codes are open to interpretation. To complicate the issue, different forms of interpretation exist between code types API ASME are separate organizations so their codes are structured differently, written in quite different styles.

1.1 Codes and the real world

Both API and ASME codes are meant to apply to the real world, but in significantly different ways. The difficulty comes when, in using these codes in the context of the API ICP examinations, it is necessary to distil both approaches down to a single style of ICP examination question (always of multiple choice, single-answer format).

1.2 ASME construction codes

ASME construction codes (VIII, V and IX) represent the art of the possible, rather than the ultimate in fitness for service (FFS) criteria or technical perfection. They share the common feature that they are written entirely from a new construction viewpoint and hence are relevant up to the point of handover or putting into use of a piece of equipment. Strictly, they are not written with in-service inspection or repair in mind. This linking with the restricted activity of new construction means that these codes can be prescriptive, sharp-edged and in most cases fairly definitive about the technical requirements that they set. It is difficult to agree that their content is not black and white, even if you do not agree with the technical requirements or acceptance criteria, etc., that they impose.

Do not make the mistake of confusing the definitive requirements of construction codes as being the formal arbiter of FFS. It is technically possible, in fact common-place, to use an item safely that is outside code requirements as long as its integrity is demonstrated by a recognized FFS assessment method.

1.3 API inspection codes

API inspection codes (e.g. API 510) and their supporting recommended practice documents (e.g. API RP 572 and 576) are very different. They are not construction codes and so do not share the prescriptive and ‘black and white’ approach of construction codes.

There are three reasons for this:

They are based around accumulated expertise from a wide variety of equipment applications and situations.

The technical areas that they address (corrosion, equipment lifetimes, etc.) can be diverse and uncertain.

They deal with technical opinion, as well as fact.

Taken together, these make for technical documents that are more of a technical way of looking at the world than a solution, unique or otherwise, to a technical problem. In such a situation you can expect opinion to predominate.

Like other trade associations and institutions, API (and ASME) operate using a structure of technical committees. It is committees that decide the scope of codes, call for content, review submissions and review the pros and cons of what should be included in their content. It follows therefore that the content and flavour of the finalized code documents are the product of committees. The output of committees is no secret – they produce fairly well-informed opinion based on an accumulation of experience, tempered, so as not to appear too opinionated or controversial, by having the technical edges taken off. Within these constraints there is no doubt that API codes do provide sound and fairly balanced technical opinion. Do not be surprised, however, if this opinion does not necessarily match your own.

1.3.1 Terminology

API and ASME documents use terminology that occasionally differs from that used in European and other codes. Non-destructive examination (NDE), for example, is normally referred to as non-destructive testing (NDT) in Europe and API work on the concept that an operative who performs NDE is known as the examiner rather than by the term technician used in other countries. Most of the differences are not particularly significant in a technical sense – they just take a little getting used to.

In some cases, meanings can differ between ASME and API codes (pressure and leak testing are two examples). API codes benefit from their principle of having a separate section (see API 510 section 3) containing definitions. These definitions are selective rather than complete (try and find an accurate explanation of the difference between the terms approve and authorize, for example).

Questions from the ICP examination papers are based solely on the terminology and definitions understood by the referenced codes. That is the end of the matter.

1.3.2 Calculations

Historically, both API and ASME codes were based on the United States Customary System (USCS) family of units. There are practical differences between this and the European SI system of units.

SI is a consistent system of units, in which equations are expressed using a combination of base units. For example:

In SI units all the parameters would be stated in their base units, i.e.

Stress:

N/m^2...