asme pvp 2016 pcc-1 appendix a session summary

1

Notes on ASME PCC-1 Appendix A Training - Industry Update, as discussed at the 2016 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference (Session Nos DA-10-5 and DA-10-6), 19th July 2016 Session Chair & Developer - Clay Rodery Session Co-Chair & Co-Developer - Warren Brown

Session DA-10-5: Bolted Joint Assembler Qualification—Implementation Experience Summary: The intent of this session was to provide an opportunity for current practitioners in the field of bolted joint assembler training in accordance with ASME PCC-1 Appendix A, or their international counterparts, to present their experiences with the implementation of ASME PCC-1 Appendix A.

The opportunity arose to have Dr David Nash, from the University of Strathclyde talk about undergraduate programs and the future of codes and standards as part of the undergraduate curriculum, which was also felt to be relevant, in some ways, to the discussion.

Speaker 1 - Dr David Nash, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland Some thoughts on educating undergraduates on Pressurised Systems and Bolted Flanged Joint Technology (presentation only, see pages 1-7 of the attachment)

Dr Nash outlined the current efforts to incorporate Codes and Standards into the teaching of undergraduates, including why that was an important aspect of engineering education to cover. He noted that Strathclyde have been doing this successfully for the last 30 years and therefore their program will be used as a role model for the effort.

Speaker 2 - Dr Tsutomu Kikuchi, Idemitsu Kousan, Chiba, Japan A Planning for establishing the Certification System of Bolt Tightening Workers and Managers in Japan (presentation only, see pages 8-10 of the attachment)

Dr Kikuchi outlined the current efforts in Japan to create a bolted joint assembler qualification program, similar to that outlined in ASME PCC-1 Appendix A. In their sealing technology committee, a working group started to investigate the certification system 3 years ago. Firstly, knowledge on the sealing technology which assemblers should learn has been developed, that is, mechanical characteristics of bolted flanged connections and leakage phenomena. In addition, a method how to calculate a target bolt preload, bolt tightening torque is described in the text. Furthermore, two tightening procedures, that is, one way tightening which was developed Japanese standard (JIS B 2510) and star sequence method which was developed by ASME PCC-1. Assemblers other exercise is to tighten bolts and nuts in bolted flanged connections according to the above two ways. The workers also learn how to attach strain gauges at the shank of bolts and the flange hub. Of course, they measure the strains and the stress by the attached strain gauges. The experiments are carried out to measure an amount of leakage from bolted flanged connections using 2” pipe flange. They will learn how to measure the amount of gas leakage. So, they will know the mechanical behaviours of the connections and the tightening methods. Now, WG committee discuss on the certification system, in particular, problems are who can certificate the assemblers, how to determine training places and the content of the training. We can demonstrate a new trial for establishing the certification system and the training content for better assemblers and the manager for the connections.

2

Speaker 3 - Dr Warren Brown, Integrity Engineering Solutions, Dunsborough, Australia IJAQ: Institute of Joint Assembler Qualification (presentation only, see pages 11-13 of the attachment)

Dr Brown outlined the current efforts to create the Institute for Bolted Joint Assembler Qualification (IJAQ). IJAQ is based in Western Australia, but intended to be a global organization. IJAQ was established in 2016 to facilitate qualification of pressure boundary bolted joint assemblers in accordance with ASME PCC-1 Appendix A and EN 1591-4. IJAQ collects and disseminates the knowledge of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in the field of bolted joint assembly and assembler training by providing a “Train-the-Trainer” model. Under this model, the SME knowledge is collated in to a standardised curriculum and testing regime, which is then presented by approved and trained trainers globally. Using this method, key SME knowledge is able to be transferred on a regional level most effectively. The teaching methods are predominately demonstration based, and to facilitate that IJAQ have developed the Training, Examination and Demonstration (TED) Rig. The rig offers over 12 fully instrumented joints, a nut factor station and heat exchanger module in order to ensure effective demonstrations and examination of the concepts required in accordance with ASME PCC-1 Appendix A for both core and additional qualification subjects. The IJAQ curriculum is currently under development and it is expected the Appendix A qualification through IJAQ will be available by the end of 2016.

Speaker 4 - Mr David Lay, Hytorc, Highland, Utah USA Implementing a PCC-1 Appendix A compliant qualified bolting specialist program (presentation only, see pages 14-23 of the attachment)

Mr Lay outlined the ASME efforts to create their certificate course and associated system of Approved Training Providers (ATPs) to provide a system of assembler training and certification similar to that outlined in ASME PCC-1 Appendix A. The presentation outlined the delineation between different parts of ASME and that there was no ASME PCC-1 endorsement of the ASME certificate course or program. The presentation was intended only as a summary of the background, problems, decisions, and adjustments that any potential training provider will have to address if they choose to offer a path to the Qualified Bolting Specialist certificate described in ASME PCC-1:2013, Appendix A. Mr Lay explained that it is to the benefit of industry in general, and it was the clear intent of the writers of Appendix A, that many different institutions participate in the marketplace as Qualifying Organizations. A rising tide will lift everyone’s boat. It was hoped that the lessons learned from this process may be of encouragement or at least provide information to others who choose to jump into the same effort.

Speaker 5 - Mr Jason Barnard, Hydratight, Darlaston, UK Propagating ASME PCC-1 Appendix A Compliance (paper and presentation, see pages 24-26 of the attachment)

Mr Barnard outlined the Hydratight efforts to create and provide a fully conforming ASME PCC-1 Appendix A qualification program. The presentation and paper outline the extent of their program and the problems that they have encountered while implementing and maintaining their program. There is also discussion on industry adoption of Appendix A. It was noted that nearly three years after the introduction of Appendix A, the number of Qualifying Organizations approved to deliver the program and individuals qualified via these programs remains small in comparison with other programs, and is insufficient to meet the future safety demands of the industry or the objectives of ASME PCC-1 Appendix A. There is also comparison between Appendix A with other international

3

qualifications and suggested recommendations intended to increase recognition and conformance to these guidelines. The recommendations and expected benefits follow from an extensive review of work by other organizations and published data concerned to reduce recorded leaks from bolted joints, including:

a) Implementation lessons learned from a Qualifying Organization and Review Organization. b) Current international qualifications and the differing routes to achieve each qualification:

1) ASME PCC-1 Appendix A Training and Qualification of Bolted Joint Assembly Personnel. 2) European standard EN 1591-4 Qualification of personnel competency in the assembly of

the bolted connections of critical service pressurized systems. 3) Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) Mechanical Joint Integrity

(MJI) technical training standards and Step Change in Safety Mechanical Joint Integrity Route to Competence Guidance

4) Additional country specific qualifications c) Program effectiveness study of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB)

Mechanical Joint Integrity (MJI) program and the Step Change in Safety Hydrocarbon Release (HCR) model set up to achieve leak reduction in the UK North Sea sector.

Finally the paper concluded by outlining the benefits to be gained globally by considering standardization of all international qualification programs to enable true portability to include:

1) The need to increase the number of auditable Qualifying Organizations able to deliver the program, qualify individuals and engage operator/contractors in the process.

2) Importance of effective communication and summary of the guidelines.

Session DA-10-6: Panel Session—Bolted Joint Assembler Qualification—Industry Feedback Session Summary: The intent of this session was to provide an opportunity for PCC-1 Committee and End User feedback regarding the intent of ASME PCC-1 Appendix A and the current programmes on offer. The session was primarily intended as a discussion, with

Speaker 6 - Dr Warren Brown*, Integrity Engineering Solutions, Dunsborough, Australia * Also Vice Chairman, ASME Subcommittee on Flanged Joint Assembly ASME Structure: Background for PCC-1 Appendix A Discussion (presentation only, see pages 27-29 of the attachment)

Dr Brown presented on the structure of ASME, with specific reference to the differences and separation between ASME Codes and Standards and ASME Training and Development. The intent of the presentation was to ensure that subsequent discussion in the session was facilitated by the recognition that there is a significant difference between the activities of the ASME PCC-1 Subcommittee efforts and those of the ASME T&D training. Specifically that there is no endorsement or special consideration offered to the ASME T&D bolted joint assembler certificate program.

Speaker 7 - Mr Clay Rodery*, BP plc, Houston, USA * Also Chairman, ASME Subcommittee on Flanged Joint Assembly An overview of the intent and current status of ASME PCC-1 Appendix A (presentation only, see pages 30-32 of the attachment)

Mr Rodery outlined the intent of ASME PCC-1 Appendix A and the requirements for ensuring conformance with its requirements. He then went on to present as an end-user on a suggested list of items for consideration when determining if any given qualifying organization(s) were in

4

conformance and whether they offered the best or acceptable bolted joint assembler qualification, from the perspective of the end-user.

General Discussion The floor was then opened for general discussion and the following points were raised and discussed.

1. There was significant concern from both end users, training providers and other organizations considering applying ASME PCC-1 Appendix A that there was significant advantage in the market for the ASME T&D programme due to the use of the ASME name and logo. This was perceived as a major problem which would prevent the desired free market developing and would severely limit the ability of competitors to compete.

2. The fact that the ASME T&D offering was not endorsed by the PCC-1 Subcommittee and ASME Standards & Certification organization in any way was also discussed at length; however most participants felt that while the people in the room may now understand that, it was unlikely that general industry would make that connection. Therefore, it was felt that the ASME name associated with the T&D offering was effectively an open endorsement of the program as the only “ASME Approved” option for PCC-1 Appendix A training.

3. Several lines of questioning regarding the ability of other organizations to use the “ASME Approved” or, alternatively, not allowing the ASME T&D program to use the ASME logo were discussed. This may help slightly to address the problem, and was actually considered reasonable, since the “qualification” for the ASME T&D programme is awarded by an Authorized Training Provider (ATP) and not ASME.

4. There is existing publicity issued by ASME T&D which is, at best, misleading. A request was made that this publicity be addressed somehow, to improve the accuracy of public perception of the program, particularly by comparison to other programs.

5. The ASME T&D programme was discussed, in terms of its conformance to PCC-1 Appendix A. There were several issues raised that indicated that the current ASME T&D programme was, in fact, not in conformance to ASME PCC-1 Appendix A. The primary reason was that the review organization used by ASME T&D was also an Authorized Training Provider (ATP) for ASME, and not an impartial party, as required by Appendix A. Therefore, it is a significant concern that the ASME T&D offering falls short of Appendix A conformance. Questions were raised as to how one part of the ASME organization can reconcile actions that do not meet the requirements of another part of the ASME organization (in this case, Codes and Standards, which falls under the ASME Standards and Certification department).

Proposed Actions 1. There are a number of disconnects between the efforts of ASME C&S and ASME T&D in the

field of Appendix A qualification. In addition, significant concern has been heard from industry regarding the perception that C&S endorses the T&D effort. ASME need to address this issue, Clay and Warren undertook to provide a summary document for consideration internally within ASME and follow up within ASME to address this issue.

2. The previous ASME T&D publicity is, at best, misleading. Alternative publications that address the true intent of Appendix A should be made available to address the industry perception of the ASME T&D offer.

3. There appears to be a need for clear definition of what terms may be used associated with Appendix A and who may use them. For example, it does not appear to be acceptable for a non-conforming programme to state that individuals that successfully complete the programme will “receive the ASME Certificate for the Qualified Bolting Specialist”.

1

Some thoughts on educating undergraduates on Pressurised Systems and Bolted Flanged Joint Technology

Professor David NashUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgow, Scotland

University of Strathclyde

Established in 1796, as ‘a place of useful learning’-now a leading international

technological university

• Most undergraduate BS programs – simple components– Thin shell theory, thick shells, Lame’s equations

Basics of Pressure Systems• But how does that related to the real world?

Basics of Pressure Systems

What happens here?

2

• Thin shell theory – 2D, stress resultants, direct and bending


Mr z

rz dzxx xxt

t y

y

/

/

2

2

xxxx xxNt

M zt

12

3

• Discontinuity analysis, equilibrium & compatibility, ()


• Material constitutive laws (), yield criterion


E

y

TS

Necking

DuctileRupture

133221 ,,max S

2132

322

2121 eS

yeS

Yield strength Re = 0.2%proof strength

Tensile strength Rm

Re/t / 1.5

International Code Design Stresses

Rm/t / 3.0

GB-150

Rm/t / 2.6

JB 4732

Rm/20 / 2.35

(PD 5500)

Rm/20 / 2.4

(PED,EN 13445, ASME VIII Div.2)

Rm/t / 3.5(ASME VIII Div. 1)

3

Failure modesBursting of vessel wallTearing at a discontinuityBrittle fracture at a defectCreep rupture/elevated temperatureLow cycle fatigueStress corrosion crackingCorrosion fatigueBucklingExcessive deformation (steady load)Ratcheting/incremental collapse (cyclic load)Vibration and damage

Compliance with a standard does not necessarily mean safety!

Modes addressed by pressure vessel codes -Gross plastic deformationIncremental collapseBucklingFatigue Failure

No mention of leakage

Bolted Flanged Joint Design

Pipe

Hub

Bolts

Gasket

Flange RingWasher

Nut

Standard Flanges

Threaded Lap-joint Weld-neck

Flat face Raised face Ring-type face

Blind Slip-on Socket weld

Mechanical model

flange joint interaction model

flange loads applied by internal pressure

pressure displacements

4

Mechanical model

Fd c c K k

K K c K kFb

g f

g b g fp

( ( ) . / )

( / / )..

1 21 2 2

FK K cd K k

K K c K kFg

g b g f

g b g fp

( / / )( / / )

..

21 2 2

2 1c d c K kg f( ). /

Therefore, when the gasket is relatively stiff and/or the flange is excessively flexible, the bolt load will reduce with increasing pressure

It would be thought that applying internal pressure to a joint would always increase the load on the bolts but, it can be seen that bolt load will decrease with increasing pressure, if the top line is negative!

Gaskets

y & m – seating and sealing Bolt-up Load

5

Bolt load

Effective gasket width b

Diameter at location of gasket load reaction G

Gasket load

Bolt-up Load

Bolt load Wm2 = bGy

Gasket seating load

= bGy

where y is the gasket minimum design seating stress

Bolt-up Load – gasket seating

Bolt load Wm1 = HG + H

Gasket load to maintain seal

HG = 2bGmp

where m is the gasket factor

Total hydrostatic end force H = G2p / 4

Simple force balance

Operational Load – joint sealing Moments - operational

Gasket load

HG = Wm1 − H

Hydrostatic end force HD = B2p / 4

Take moments about centre-line of bolts

hG

HT = H − HD

hT

HD

Mop = HDhD + HGhG + HThT

hD

B

6

Taylor Forge method

outline the 10 assumptions (weaknesses) of the simplified Taylor Forge model

Stress checks – and a warning (UK)

Other practical considerations• Brief mention of other codes – EN1591, ASME PCC-1• Discuss how to apply load

– tension, torque, manual, controlled, fitter approval• Discuss performance over time• Discuss hydro-testing• Consider other ‘failure modes’ – case studies• Discuss other flange types – metal-to-metal, compact

Reflections• Comprehensive treatment of pressure systems and

associated components including BFJ assemblies in UG Programs is possible

• Students find it hard work and onerous – but very useful! Cant understand why we still use very old technologies in the modern age.

• Employers have recognised value of embedding codes and standards within UG programs

• ABET and ASME looking to pilot more UG code-teaching

7

Thank you -Any questions?

1

Outline1. Organization of the committee ; “stop”2. Current situation of certification system

A Planning for establishing the Certification System of Bolt Tightening Workers and Managers in Japan

Dr.Tsutomu Kikuchi (Idemitsu Kosan Co.,LTD.)Dr. Koji Kondo (Shinko Plantech Co.,LTD)

1

• Bolted Joint Assembler Qualification-Implemenation Experience

Hyatt Regency Vancouver HotelJuly 19, 2016

PVP2016-63707

Mr.Riichi Morimoto (Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation)

Committee STOPSealing Technology Of Pressure Equipment

Objectives:Develop a researches for sealing technology of design rules and assembly work guidelines of bolted flanged joints for preventing accidents and environmental incidents.

Chair: T. SawaSecretary: K.Kondo ,T.MabuchiAdvisor: T.Kikuchi,T.NishidaMembers: 22- Engineering ，Petrochemical，Gasket - Plant maintenance ，Valve，University

2

Concept of Certification systemFor bolted flange joining work

3

Committee STOP

Working GrCertification system Design of Flange Gasket

Working Gr Working Gr ・・・・

① Need of Education For Bolted Flange Joining Work

Statistical Data of leakage accidents☆leak accident every year ☆1%

Current status ⇒ Most Japanese executive engineers don’t need certification system in Japan

certification system Economical Needs

☆start up delay ☆maintenance inefficiency☆Great disaster such as great earthquake may happen in Japan

Political Needs☆report to local authority

4

2

Changes in social Structure in Japan (population will be decrease）☆skiｌl of experienced workers＆managersDon’t understanding Important point of Flange Assembly Work ＆ QC ?

☆Number of experienced workers & Manager reduces in the market

• Reaching retiring age of successor shortage• Longer TA interval provides fewer experience

for workers & managers

TA : Turn aroundQC : Quality control

Education System is needed for maintaining the required level of technical skills to secure the safety and quality of bolted flanged joints.

5

② need of the certification system for bolted flange joining work

★ Some oil / petro-chemical companies provides flange assembly training

★ Different program from those in each company.

★ Training contents are questionable.

★ Training target ⇒ Workers⇒Workers and managers

Certificate of Flange Assembly Work is needed in Japan

6

We decided to establish our original Japanese certification system.

2 level certificates are needed (flange joining workers and managers)

The certification in the standard “Certification System of the Bolted Flange Joining Work” has been described.

Certify & Qualify organization are carried out with the outside agency．

7

③ Content of education

Firstly, knowledge on the sealing technology which tighteningworkers & managers should learn has been developed

☆mechanical Characteristics of bolted flanged connections andleakage phenomena.

☆A method how to calculate a target bolt preload, bolt tightening torque is described in the text.

☆Two tightening procedures will be studied & excise to tightenbolts and nuts

・one way tightening specified in Japanese standard (JIS B 2251)

・star sequence method specified in ASME PCC-1

8

3

③ Content of education(continued)☆To learn how to attach strain gauges at the bolts and the flange

hub.

☆To learn measuring methods

for the stresses and the strains.

☆To learn measuring method for an amount of leakage using

4 inch pipe flange connection.

☆Final confirmed examination（theoretical & practical)9

④Qualification of Bolted Joint Assembly Personnel Procedure Flowchart

UserMaintenance & Construction Company

Qualifying Organization・Creates a Qualification Program ・Conducts training & assessment of individual

Certify Qualifying OrganizationAudit Qualifying Organization・ Preparation of documents (Standard)・Qualification management (including the re‐certification)

①apply forCertification

②Certification Audit

③Request Training program

④Teaching &Examinationprogram

⑤apply for issuance of certificates

⑥ grant certification

10

Thank you for your kind attention

11

Flag : Leakage-Free demonstration

1

ASME PVP 2016 ConferenceVancouver, Canada

Bolt Relaxation

Warren BrownIntegrity Engineering SolutionsDunsborough, Western Australia

[email protected]

IJAQ Overview

2©Institute of Joint Assembler Qualification, please do not copy, distribute or reproduce without expressed consent

The Institute of Joint Assembler Qualification (IJAQ), was established in 2016 to facilitate qualification of pressure boundary bolted joint assemblers in accordance with

ASME PCC‐ 1 Appendix A and EN1591‐4.

IJAQ collects and disseminates the knowledge of preeminent Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in the field of

bolted joint assembly and assembler training.

ASME PVP Conference 2016, Vancouver, Canada

IJAQ Overview – Founding SMEs



IJAQ Overview


General Overview – Goals

• Train‐the‐Trainer; maximize level of impact of course at local level

• Provide Standardized Curriculum, Testing and Demonstrations

• Provide Demonstration Equipment for Above

• Provide 3rd Party Verification of test results

• Provide Trainer Training, for PCC‐1 Appendix A Compliance

• Provide forum for End‐User Consultation and Guidance (with a

goal of standardization of industry approach)

• Provide Auditor Training as Required


2

IJAQ Overview


Where IJAQ Fits In:


IJAQ Overview – Curriculum• Demonstration Based Learning

• Online Pre‐Work to Minimize Class Time

• In‐Person Demonstrations

TED Rig (Testing, Examination and Demonstration Rig)



IJAQ Overview – Curriculum• TED – the ultimate Training, Examination and Demonstration Rig



TED Rig:

A. 12 flanges with fully instrumented bolts and some with gasket compression

B. Flange misalignment (adjustable)

C. Heat Exchanger module

D. Hydraulic torque and tensioner demonstrations

E. Practical test capable (uploads to IJAQ central database)

F. Theoretical test capable (uploads to IJAQ central database)

G. Other demonstrations

8©Integrity Engineering Solutions, please do not copy, distribute or reproduce without expressed consent


3

IJAQ Overview – Curriculum• Theory Examination: 4 tablets onboard for multi‐choice testing

Required Theoretical Test Subjects (80 random questions from below subjects)SafetyPreparationMaterialsInitial AssemblyFinal AssemblyQA/QC Steps

Optional Theoretical Testing Subjects (20 random questions from each of below subjects)Site Specific (specific training for individual companies/sites)Hydraulic TorqueHydraulic TensionHeat ExchangerClamp ConnectorsCompact Flanges

• Questions Categorized – Essential, Important, General9©Institute of Joint Assembler Qualification, please do not copy, distribute or reproduce without expressed consent


IJAQ Overview – Curriculum• Practical Examination: All Joints are Fully Instrumented

• Track joint assembly in real time, recorded and can be played back

• Inspection Grading (correct recording and outcome)

• Joint Alignment Limits (correct level of acceptance)

• Exchanger Assembly

• Hydraulic Tool Use

• Nut Factor – Correct Anti‐Seize Application & Result



IJAQ Overview – Curriculum• Different Levels of Courses

• Qualification – fully PCC‐1 App A Compliant (3 days ++)

• Information – Similar scope, no testing/qual (2 days)

• Short Course – Reduced scope (1 day)

• Inspection – Preparation for Inspectors (0.5 days)

• On‐Boarding – Summary of site requirements (0.3 days)

• Also; Certification (No Training, just Examination) (0.5 days)



IJAQ Overview – Roll‐Out of Program• Australian TED Rig – Complete March 2016

• US TED Rig – Completed June 2016

• Australia – Training of Qualifying Organizations Q4 2016

• US – Hex Technology currently using TED Rig for non‐qualification

training

• By end of 2016 – IJAQ Qualification training, demonstrations and

tests completed and SME reviewed

• Watch this space…



Notes from the Training Course on Bolting Assembly

But the complex technology of bolting has not yet been given the importance that it deserves.Why do we certify welders but require not proof of experience or training for the people who tighten bolted flanges?Which is more likely to leak or to fail?It is not enough to get it tight… you have to do it right!And, you have to prove it!

5


© HYTORC/Bolt Science 2006

Highlights of these new training guidelines include:•Specific skills and learning objectives•Establishment of 3 certification levels for assemblers which are portable and renewable and are not company specific•Reaches its training objectives through an innovative “certifying organization” approach

6



Here’s where the auditor comes in…

7



Highlights of these new training guidelines include:•Specific skills and learning objectives•Establishment of 3 certification levels for assemblers which are portable and renewable and are not company specific•Reaches its training objectives through an innovative “certifying organization” approach

1

The information, tables and data provided within this presentation represent the Authors understanding and interpretation of the information included within ASME PCC-1-2013.

PVP2016-63228

PROPAGATING ASME PCC-1 APPENDIX A COMPLIANCE

July 19, 2016

Jason Barnard

Global Technical Competency Leader


Introduction

Overview

• Appendix A released November 2013

• Hydratight achieved Appendix A “Qualifying Organization” status during September 2014

Key objectives

• Share our experience and knowledge from delivering the program

• Make recommendations to increase recognition and compliance

Areas of improvement

• Industry wide recognition and knowledge

• Delivery of the program

• Supplemental and maintenance of qualifications

Hydratight fully support the Appendix A program and want to share our experience inorder to expand delivery of the program worldwide…


Appendix A states that training, demonstration, practical and theoretical examinations shall beundertaken by a “Qualifying Organization” who has had their “Qualification Program” approvedby a “Review Organization”.

How do you find a “Review Organization”?

When Appendix A was released in November 2013 it took Hydratight until June 2014 to find acompetent Review Organization to validate our qualification manual and program.

Ownership and additional control via ASME or an independent organization working under theapproval of ASME may be required to improve this process in order to:

• Increase the number of registered Review Organizations.

• Include possible licensing options.

• Identify and publish approved Review Organization details.

• Alternatively replace the Qualifying and Review Organization process with the ASMEApproved Training Provider (ATP) route?

• Clearly communicate the ATP application process to interested organizations.

A consistent route either ATP or QO needs to be agreed….

Qualifying & Review Organizations


Qualifications and verification of experience;

There are 4 qualifications detailed within Appendix A and Training of Fundamentals isconsidered the pre-requisite.

However the verification of field experience can prove a barrier to implementation.

Improvement areas for consideration:

• Is the length of experience too long or frequency criteria complicated?• Should a task based system including a shorter experience period be considered?• Is the difference in roles and criteria restrictive in comparison with other qualifications?• Do we need 3 roles?

Table 1: Training of Fundamentals Qualification Experience Matrix

* Frequent = Daily basis - All time worked** Infrequent = Intense periods, 1 week per month, one third of year – Half time worked*** Sporadic = Less than infrequent above – Quarter time worked

Training of Fundamentals

Qualification Qualified Bolting Specialist(QBS)

Qualified Senior Bolting Specialist(QSBS)

Qualified Bolting Specialist Instructor(QBSI)

Training of Fundamentals6 months frequent* 2 years frequent* 4 years frequent*1 year infrequent** 4 years infrequent** 8 years infrequent**2 years sporadic*** 8 years sporadic*** 16 years sporadic***

2


How do you Qualify for a Supplemental Qualification?

• The individual must complete additional training and examination in each qualification.

• Experience is required equivalent to a quarter of the time spent on those items of equipmentcompared to the Training of Fundamentals criteria.

Evolution of the program may identify that these experience requirements may need tobe revised?

• Supplemental qualifications in the areas of Heat Exchangers and Special Joints could beregarded as restrictive or even unachievable.

• A task based system instead of time based system could be considered similar to otherinternational bolting training programs.

Table 2: Supplemental Qualification Experience Matrix

Supplemental Qualifications

Qualification Qualified Bolting Specialist(QBS)

Qualified Senior Bolting Specialist(QSBS)

Qualified Bolting Specialist Instructor(QBSI)

Powered Equipment Supplemental QualificationHeat Exchanger Supplemental Qualification

Special Joint Supplemental Qualification

6 weeks frequent* 6 months frequent* 1 year frequent*

3 months infrequent** 1 year infrequent** 2 years infrequent**

6 months sporadic*** 2 years sporadic*** 4 years sporadic***


This part of the program is affected by many variables including:

• Re-training• Examination• Attestation statements (Table 4)• Role specific experience as detailed within Table 3 belowTable 3: Maintenance of Qualification Experience Matrix

****Based upon 228 working week days per year over a 3 year period

Examination and practical testing only, specific to each qualification should be considered at this3 year renewal stage to include:

1. Common examination question database, preferably web based.2. Practical testing via QO or ATP.

A common system should be made available to all Qualifying Organizations or ApprovedTraining Providers to ensure consistency…

Maintenance of Qualifications

ASME Defined Roles Field Experience Required

Qualified Bolting Specialist (QBS) % undefined within Appendix A

Qualified Senior Bolting Specialist (QSBS) 137 days @ 20%****

Qualified Bolting Specialist Instructor (QBSI) 68 days @10%****


Table 4: Maintenance of Qualification Attestation Matrix

Simplify this part of the process to ensure consistency and compliance…

Maintenance of Qualifications

Attestation Compliance Statement QBS QSBS QBSIProvide a copy of current/expired training and qualification certificates

Become familiar with the applications of new technology in gaskets, flanges, fasteners, assembly equipment and joint assemblytechniques

Maintain knowledge of current local administrative or operating procedures necessary to discharge duties

Maintain knowledge of the most recent versions of ASME PCC-1 and other applicable standards as listed within par A-1.3

Maintain awareness of new techniques and technologies in bolted joint assembly and disassembly

Actively participate in selected meetings, seminars and educations programs related to duties

Have workplace access to the latest edition of ASME PCC-1 and the applicable documents referenced in para A-1.3

Provide at least two references from a Supervisor and Co-worker.Note: At least one reference should be from a supervisor at current or previous workplace

Shall take and pass the Training of Fundamentals portion (para. A-2.3) of ASME PCC-1 Appendix A. If no changes topara. A-2.3 has occurred then that portion of the requalification process may be omitted.

Spend a minimum of 20% of time working in the field with QBS, QSBS, trained bolting assemblers, trained senior boltingassemblers, bolting assemblers or senior bolting assemblers (not applicable to QBSI)

Assist with the amendment of existing work-site assembly procedures deemed inadequate or unsafe, or the development ofrevised work-site assembly procedures for unusual conditions or equipment

Attend or conduct at least one professional level seminar or workshop per year related to one or more of the duties described inpara 4.2

Spend a minimum of 10% of time working in the field with QBS, QSBS, trained bolting assemblers, trained senior boltingassemblers, bolting assemblers or senior bolting assemblers

Shall take and pass a short test or quiz designed to highlight any updates to that have occurred in the preceding 3 years to theTraining of Fundamentals portion of para. A-2.3 of ASME PCC-1 Appendix A. If no changes to para. A-2.3 has occurred then thatportion of the requalification process may be omitted.


Effective training programs specify durations and trainee to Instructor ratios for training andtesting purposes.

Appendix A however does not contain such guidance and inclusion within the guideline shouldbe considered to ensure consistent delivery and standards as below:

Course Durations

• Training of Fundamentals - 2 days duration• Powered Equipment Supplemental Qualification - 1 day duration• Heat Exchanger Supplemental Qualification - 1 day duration• Special Joint Supplemental Qualification - 1 day duration

Class Sizes

• 6:1 non-powered equipment• 4:1 powered equipment• 2:1 testing

Class size and ratio guidance should be mandatory to ensure safety and quality is notcomprised and provide sufficient hands on practical exposure for all trainees.

This information is missing from Appendix A and our recommendations above are basedupon our experience and compliance with other international programs…

Course Durations & Class Sizes

3


To expand the program it is essential that delivery of the program is increased.

Appendix A makes reference to International Qualifications and an example of a program whichhas evolved since 1994 is the ECITB Mechanical Joint Integrity (MJI) program.

More than 3000 people are trained and over 2000 tests are completed via this program on anannual basis across a network of 17 training providers.

Fig. 2: UK ECITB MJI Training & Technical Testing Data (Data Source ECITB – Correct at 15/02/2016)

We are now approaching 3 years after release of Appendix A but the results provided within Fig.2 above seem like a distant target or even unachievable under the current delivery mechanism.

We should be striving to exceed these targets with Appendix A.

Case Study

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2012 2013 2014 2015

Tech

nica

l Tes

t Pas

s R

ate

%

Tota

l Tra

ined

/Tes

ted

Trained Qty Tested Qty Test Pass Ratio %


The Program Effectiveness requirement as detailed within Appendix A also requires furtherclarification and ownership.

In its current format responsibility to meet this criteria lies with the Qualifying and ReviewOrganizations which could be seen as a possible barrier to compliance.

A similar process to the ECITB MJI program should be considered where all activity is recordedby ASME and compared against industry leak rate performance as detailed within Fig. 4 below.

Fig. 4: UK Hydrocarbon Release Data vs ECITB MJI Technical Test Ratio (Data Source ECITB and Step Change in Safety – Correct at 15/02/2016)

The example within Fig. 4 clearly shows that as technical test pass rates have increased, hydrocarbon releases have decreased...

Program Effectiveness

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015

Tech

nica

l Tes

t Pas

s R

ate

%

Tota

l Lea

ks

Total No of Leaks Test Pass Ratio %


In summary and order to propagate ASME PCC-1 Appendix A compliance the belowrecommendations are provided for consideration:

1. Adopt the Approved Training Provider (ATP) route.

2. Seek out potential international ATP’s.

3. Provide both on-line and classroom delivery methods to accommodate different learningstyles and language options.

4. Apply the same end point testing process via an ATP after classroom delivery.

5. Use a common online database for all registration, examination and certification.

6. Operate a task based experience process for Supplemental Qualifications.

7. Implement an examination and testing only process for Maintenance of Qualifications.

8. Update Appendix A to reflect any changes to the process.

To fully drive this program, more organizations should be encouraged to follow theguidelines and strive to become fully compliant.

This will only happen if access to the qualification program is increased andstreamlined…

Conclusion


QUESTIONS?

1

ASME PVP 2016, Vancouver

1

ASME STRUCTURE BACKGROUND FOR PCC-1 APPENDIX A DISCUSSION

2

3 4

2

July 22, 2016

ASME TEC Sector

5

Sector has Segments: Energy Sources and Processing

Energy Conversion and Storage

Design, Materials, and Manufacturing

Engineering Sciences

Gas Turbine

July 22, 2016

Pressure TechnologyManufacturingClean Energy

RoboticsBioengineering

6

Board of Governors Focus Technologies Selected

July 22, 2016

MISSION: ASME serves diverse global humankind.

7

Executive Committee Guidelines

8

ASME T&D• Relatively New Organization• Certificates for Training• No Volunteer Organization or Oversight• No S&C Oversight

ASME S&C• Long History• Extensive Volunteer

Organization

3

9

ASME T&D• Relatively New Organization• Certificates for Training• No Volunteer Organization or Oversight• No S&C Oversight

ASME S&C• Long History• Extensive Volunteer

Organization

Important that the PVP attendees understand that:1) The ASME T&D offering is not the only, or any preferred option for qualification per Appendix A. It is “an” option (equal footing).

2) The ASME T&D offering is not endorsed or reviewed or supported in any way by the ASME PCC-1 committee (i.e.: it does not come from the entirety of the committee and therefore isn't inherently "endorsed")

1

An overview of the intent and current status of ASME PCC‐1

Appendix A

Clay RoderyWarren Brown

2016 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping ConferenceVancouver, BC 119 July 2016

High level view of qualification process

An entity commits to achieve status of

“Qualifying Organization”

The entity develops a qualification

program per ASME PCC‐1 Appendix A

The entity selects a suitable Review Organization and

submits qualification

program for review

The Review Organization evaluates

qualification program for

conformance to PCC‐1 Appendix A

Upon acceptance of qualification

program by Review Organization, the entity becomes a

Qualifying Organization

The Qualifying Organization delivers their Qualification Program to

prospective bolting assemblers

Prospective bolting assemblers that successfully complete the Qualification

Program are now available to industry as Qualified Bolting

Specialists

19 July 2016 2016 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping ConferenceVancouver, BC 2

Competency

19 July 2016 2016 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping ConferenceVancouver, BC 3 19 July 2016 2016 ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

Vancouver, BC 4

ASME does not “approve,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.

2


Where do the helicopters fly when things go wrong? High level view of qualification process

An entity commits to achieve status of

“Qualifying Organization”

The entity develops a qualification

program per ASME PCC‐1 Appendix A

The entity selects a suitable Review Organization and

submits qualification

program for review

The Review Organization evaluates

qualification program for

conformance to PCC‐1 Appendix A

Upon acceptance of qualification

program by Review Organization, the entity becomes a

Qualifying Organization

The Qualifying Organization delivers their Qualification Program to

prospective bolting assemblers

Prospective bolting assemblers that successfully complete the Qualification

Program are now available to industry as Qualified Bolting

Specialists

User determines acceptability of Qualified Bolting

Specialists for work in their facility


Setting the record straight…• ASME PCC‐1 Appendix A is the roadmap for the assembler qualification

process• Any entity desiring to become a Qualifying Organization may do so;

– provided they meet the requirements of section A‐5 of Appendix A– Those requirements apply regardless of the entity (including that offered by

ASME Training & Development)• Receipt of a “certificate” means the individual has successfully completed

the program offered by that particular Qualifying Organization• ASME does not “approve,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction,

proprietary device, or activity• The final decision regarding the acceptance of the program of any given

Qualifying Organization, or of any one Qualifying Organization relative to another, rests with the User

So, let’s put ourselves in the User’s shoes…how would I, as a User, determine if any given qualification program meets the requirements of Appendix A at a satisfactory level consistent with my needs?


User assessment of an Assembler Qualification Program – some ideas

• As a User, I would want:– The Qualifying Organization’s Qualification Manual– To know the identity of the Review Organization

• To include the identities of the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that comprise the review team, along with their knowledge and experience that forms the basis of their selection to the review team

– Documentation of the Review Organization’s review; e.g., what did they review, what were their findings, and how were they addressed

– Experience record of individuals who have successfully completed their program; e.g., how many, where they have worked, etc.

– Program effectiveness metrics; e.g., what they are, how they are established/maintained, how thorough is the data, etc.

• I would probably also want the capability of sending one of my User representatives to “audit” the delivery of the training


3

Thoughts?
