Dear Mr. Rimmash

A discussion in private only involves a few people. This discussion is too important to be held just privately. My frustration with the Engineering Standards Committee and the writing of the “new” part 230 goes back to the fact that when I was actively involved with SP 3420 we were trying to solve both political and technical issues involving the locomotive and the hardest question to answer was what needed to be done when you had this unknown change coming in the future. By being open and forth-right with issues we can both educate and be transparent about issues. That is why I believe this discussion must be in the open and a lot of people are viewing this thread showing that there is public interest in this discussion.

A few points that I believe you need to consider. The discussion on fillet welding started because of the post by jasonsobczynski and the discussion has continued since then. Second the argument that fillet welding has happened in other countries so why not here is the same argument that one could use to argue against the electric starter on a model T since so many model Ts (and other automobiles) were built without electric starters. Somehow I like my wrists. Third if we are going to look at things objectively, then we must consider how a staybolt is attached as it plays a significant roll in allowing the staybolt to do the work it is suppose to do.

Your posts dated the 16th of February asked a couple of questions that I should answer. Before we begin let us define a heat affected zone. To me a Heat Affected Zone is created by the rapid cooling of an iron based metal in which the metal is heated into the gamma iron range (Face Centered Cubic structure) and then rapidly cooled back to a alpha steel (Body Centered Cubic structure) where the carbon inability to diffuse into the steel inhibits the iron to phase change back to its BCC structure creating a harden steel called martinsite This rapid cooling is caused by the adjacent mass of metal absorbing the heat at a rapid rate and is called mass quench. With this you have recrystalization of the steel which becomes your heat affected zone. The size of both the austenite and pearlite gains of the steel in the heat affected zone are finer than in the surrounding structure. This difference in grain structure creates the localized behavior change in the material.

The solution is control the rate of cooling which is dependent upon the alloying elements and the base thickness. Therefore you can expect heat affected zones in both fillet welded and full penetration welding procedures. SP 3420 shows dramatic effects on the first boiler coarse from the fillet welded tube sheet on the locomotive. The welding technique used literally deformed the first coarse of the boiler barrel. This deformation can be easily felt but not easily photographed. For the record if anyone wants to see a photograph of the tube sheet weld on 3420 there is one on page 17 in the 1995 May-June issue of Locomotive & Railway Preservation. You will notice that in the photograph the weld dimensions are not consistent.

On the subject of weld inspection, the only way to know a welds true strength is the use of destructive testing which is not an option for every weld. If the intent is to test the entire weld then no weld can be tested by visual inspection alone. A lot of things can hide under the surface. To that end we did not do just dye penetrate but also florescent magnetic particle (done by multiple people), field metallography, and field hardness testing to determine the properties of both the weld and the respective boiler sheets. Any joint situation used can be subject to a variety of tests if we choose to do them.

As I have stated earlier in this thread I have other commitments in April which conflict with the ESC meeting. Hopefully the public discussion will continue.

Robby

Hi Robby,

The next ASME Code Week is May 3-7 in San Antonio, TX at the St. Anthony Wyndham Hotel then August 2-6 in Washington, DC at the Hyatt Regency Washington Capitol Hill and November 1-5 in Vancouver, BC at the Westin Bayshore. All the schedules are available at http://www.asme.org. I realize it can be a hardship to travel to some of these locations, but you can interact with the Committees and the Subgroups by requesting interpretations and requests for Code Cases. The requests, as I understand it, get to the top of the appropriate adgenda at the next scheduled meeting so a response can be had within 60 days depending on when your request is made.

I hope you have an opportunity to come to a Code week. All but some administration meetings are open to the public and the committee members I have had the good pleasure of interacting with are very approachable and welcome comments from visitors during the meetings.

Best Regards,

Stan

Dear Mr. Ottaway,

Thank you for that information I shall keep that in mind.

Robby

.

You are welcome.
S.O.

As someone who has taken and passed such a professional examination, I know I would not want to be flying around the country, debating boiler codes, and living out of suitcase a day or 2 before I take such an examination. The FE exam is generally taken during senior year at school and is is a test of what you learned in engineering school as opposed to the PE exam which tests you on specific engineering problems encountered while at work in the "real world". I commend Mr. Peartree for undertaking such a challenge and being willing to contribute to the continued operation of steam locomotives. Good luck on your FE exam Robby.


Rob

Robby,

First of all, my invitation to meet with you in person in no way was to hide the discussion from the public. It was an "olive branch" in show of the fact that I support your views and opinions and feel that they are worthy of a detailed
"one on one" debate. I invite anybody to attend such a personal "one on one" debate. The public discussion being held here at RYPN though unique and informative is very....very.....very limited in depth and actual debate.

I really wish I knew how to do the quote thing......like you guys know how to do. At any rate, Robby, I just flew back from Switzerland, will be back in a week, I have three major bids all due next week, as well as seven major projects going, not to mention my annual ASME audit and three new boiler hydro's all in the next two weeks and somehow, I find it important enough to be at the meeting and yes, I live out of a suitcase, I do bids on the road and I handle customers from any where in the world and I still find time for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, my wife and four children. I am sure if somebody of my limited education and knowledge can do such things, surely you can be at the meeting and still pass your test and yes, even live out of a suit case for two days. Seems like it has more to do with priorities than ability......right?

Finally, really great explanation on heat effected zones and way to answer the question that I have, on your own.......if done improperly.....any welding will produce a heat effected zone and some damaging affects. I still maintain, that a fillet weld has a much smaller foot-print and therefor a smaller heat effected zone and even by your explanation, a less damaging end result. I can not agree that every weld needs to be destructively tested to prove integrity. We do not test every weld in a current "new construction ASME vessel" so why would we do it any other time? A proven fillet weld, once tested and accepted, is enough. Right?

Kelly A. Can you help me find a flight.....kind of short on time, but really plan to be there! Really important to me! That was really kind of you to help Robby out on that one.

Respectfully, fresh back from a great discussion with leading Swiss Boiler Inspectors....waiting to share what I learned at the meeting,

John E. Rimmasch
Wasatch Railroad Contractors

wrrc.us

.

Dear Mr. Anderson,

The issue here is not simply buying tickets or the act of planning a trip. The deeper issue here is the fact that a significant number of the people who are working on locomotives today are not doing it for a career but as a hobby. To that end the time they have (and for that matter I have) is limited by the fact that their bills are paid by other activities which must take president. There are so many organizations where the volunteers take on critical tasks without complaint or compensation for the benefit of the “public good”. Now I would like to attend a meeting of the ESC but that will not be easy for me.

According to Mr. Withuhn, Mr. Conrad played an important role in the writing of the 49 CFR Part 230 in reminding everyone that not all organizations had substantial resources that they could throw at their locomotives. I want to remind both you and the committee that that is still true. Safety can not be compromised to make things easier. It is important to communicate on what is happening with the ESC and what changes may be in store for part or all of the industry so that missteps for all are minimized. In the end our regulators hold both the full time professional and the volunteer to the same standard. If one of us, paid or volunteer does or causes the “unthinkable to happen” the results will affect us all equally.

To that end, do not take my frustrations as a deliberate slam of the ESC because I have a personal issue with something but a challenge to fill a void. We do not communicate as well as we should in this industry. As a result rumors flow like raging torrents of water leaving the truth buried in a field of lies, mistruths, and over excited egos that ultimately do more harm than good. In the end what is perceived due personal biases becomes fact no matter what the facts really are. In the end very few will believe truth and we all suffer from the industries ignorance to the issues and inability to look objectively.

Respectfully,
Robby Peartree

Dear Mr. Rimmash

The ability to control cooling rates is the critical issue in controlling heat affected zones. The welding attachment used does not determine if you have heat affected zones. Therefore you could have a heat affected zone from a fillet weld and not one from a full penetration depending upon how the cooling rate is controlled.

As for a description of what the EIT-FE exam is. Consider taking every technical class in college and putting them into a day long exam where the only thing you have to use is your memory and a calculator. Compound the fact that it has been 15 years since I have graduated and even considered most of the issues in the test and you begin to see the challenge before me. There is a lot of work for me to prepare for this exam.

Respectfully
Robby Peartree

Nobody should argue with this conclusion; but it does make me wonder why we have chosen to concentrate on hardware to the exclusion of some sort of training and qualification standard. Seems that most - if not all - of the incidents that have occurred in recent history, if not since the technology was fairly well matured in about 1855 or so, are related to human error in maintenance or operation. We seem to have a pretty good grasp on building them safe - how can we then reduce the opportunity for that knowledge to be wasted through ignorance or incompetence?

dave

Matt,
Any details as to what happened with this boiler?
Thanks,
Mike Tillger

Well, not all of us........but thanks for reinforcing my point about education and qualification.

What didn't happen? Was this made in a very small New England state?

dave

I, too, have seen a quality product of the same company that likely built the boiler/firebox referenced above.......
Recently I was made aware of a new boiler with threaded stays, where the builder didn't know to use a long staybolt tap, and hence the threads in the sheets are not "timed" together. The stays were screwed in and crossthreaded...and driven, and driven, and driven until it would hold water.

The problem is that the code (ASME) makes some assumptions when specifying construction criteria that can lead to disaster:
1) Nowhere in the code does it say that the threads on adjacent firebox sheets shall be timed to accept the threaded bolt.
2) Where does the code say that a staybolt has to be straight?
3) In the most recent ASME section I, a firetube boiler only has to have 4 washouts. The older reference to "traction or portable", or "locomotive style" boiler having to have at least 6 washouts/hand holes has been dropped.

As an inspector, I have seen and had to accept/pass boilers that were built and stamped to ASME code that I thought were substandard. However, due to the fact that they met code and had the appropriate paperwork, they were deemed "OK".