New Edition of ASME Code to Include Locomotive Boilers

Dave · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:25 pm

Possibly because the damn book costs over $400......... which makes it a difficult thing to justify for purchase by smaller groups who want to do it right, but must then trust their local boilermakers to know the new locomotive code, which they probably can't justify the purchase of either for a one-off job. If there's any situation in which the information should be available at no cost to the interested and affected public, this is it.

Overmod · **Joined:** Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm **Posts:** 2492

It might be worth $415 just to find out the details of the 'final stand' the committee and the ASME took on fillet-welded staybolt practice...

filmteknik · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:03 pm

Major boiler work is a costly project even with volunteer labor. If a group cannot afford $415 can they afford to do the boiler work correctly?

Kelly Anderson · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am **Posts:** 2477

Mark Jordan · **Joined:** Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:21 am **Posts:** 490

Quote:

As a code shop we are required to buy the complete set of applicable code books every three years. How much? Over four thousand dollars.

A "jurisdiction" gets to buy even more of the pretty books each time, averaging $15k

Kelly Anderson · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am **Posts:** 2477

Dave · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:20 pm

Few of us are blessed with the equipment and talent Strasburg has in house. We have limited options: specialized locomotive contractors, industrial boiler shops in our area, and some amount of DIY depending. We don't run a for profit shop with earned income to offset the cost of investing in things we'll use once in 15 years - we want to be able to speak intelligently with our contractors or local boilermakers who may have never seen rivets before, and know with some accuracy just how much of what kind of work we can provide through our volunteers to help trim the cost of the hired work. So, rolls, brakes, presses, and, yes, costly manuals may well be beyond our ability to pay for when combined with the cost of just getting the right materials and right hired work done. I'd be very happy to have a set in the ATRRM online library that we could browse when we need good information to share with Bob's Boilers, Water Towers and Marine Repair when we sit down to talk about the specifications for the work we want them to do.

M Austin · **Joined:** Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 am **Posts:** 488

Overmod wrote:

It might be worth $415 just to find out the details of the 'final stand' the committee and the ASME took on fillet-welded staybolt practice...

Regardless of desires of some on the PL Subgroup, PW Subgroup prohibits weld corner joints that subject the root of a weld to bending stresses. PW Subgroup will have to amend PW-9.4 to say "...prohibited, except for the installation of fillet welded staybolts per Part PL."

Attachment:

PW-9.4.jpg [ 15.01 KiB | Viewed 9448 times ]

A broken fillet welded staybolt stub end is equivalent to fillet welding a 1" diameter by 3/8" thick slug over a 1" diameter hole in the boiler sheet. That is AFTER the fillet welded staybolt is broken. Before the fillet welded staybolt is broken, the corner joint bending stresses are exacerbated by the tension stresses of staybolt. This is a photo of the failure mode in action, linked from a previous post {click here} by Mark Jordan in 2010.

Dave · **Posted:** Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:27 pm

Fillet welded hollow stays? We'd know when there's a problem pretty quick.

Kelly Anderson · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am **Posts:** 2477

John E. Rimmasch · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:35 pm **Posts:** 374

The committee that headed up this effort is a very talented group! Much like the original ESC, many people came together with many views from both side of the "Fillet Welded Stay Bolt" isle.

It is critical to note;

The committee heard, discussed and debated every point of view and gave every comment a fair shake, even at the cost of some of the members on the committee. Some, including the Burg spent hard money on proving and even trying to disprove the theory and the credibility and it was done in a fair, non-bias and scientific manner. The results in many cases were fascinating at the least and amazing at most.

There will be some who will question why or how. All I can say is, I know first hand that the views and opinions and positions of all were considered in every case of every point of this new section of the code.

There is no section of the current code that needs to be re-written as a result of this code. The ASME ensured that themselves!

Linn and his group deserve a big pat on the back. This was a long, long, long road and it included a lot of people and a lot of views and it survived. Anybody with the guts that Linn M and many others even had to take this on is incredible.

My hat is off to all who participated and to so many of them that will never see this note.

Congratulations to the group that made this happen!