Response 799024939

Back to Response listing

Personal Information

What is your name?

Name (Required)
Barry Fleming

What is your organisation?

Organisation
Rheem Thermal Systems Group

Comment 01

Please provide your recommended change below.

Section / Subsection
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button: Unticked Title
Radio button: Unticked Preface
Radio button: Unticked Table of contents
Radio button: Unticked Introduction
Radio button: Ticked Clause
Radio button: Unticked Forward
Radio button: Unticked Appendix
Radio button: Unticked Bibliography
Radio button: Unticked Index
Section ID (Required)
Various
Paragraph / Table / Figure / Comment / Note
Various
Page number (Required)
12
Comment type
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button: Unticked Editorial
Radio button: Unticked General
Radio button: Ticked Technical
Comment (Required)
See proposed change
Proposed change
In reviewing the proposed WMTS-528 it is noted that in a few sections it deviates from global testing standards such as PED and ASME.

Section: Appendix; Paragraph: B.2; Page 12
- A hydrostatic pressure test with 90º C water has been proposed.
- We suggest an alternative should be a hydrostatic pressure test with ambient or 20º C water
(in line with global standards like PED, ASME, UL, PED and KHK, all at 20°C)

Section: Clause; Paragraph: 9.3; Page 4
- A hydrostatic strength test at 1.5 times the maximum allowable working pressure has been proposed
- We suggest an alternative should be a hydrostatic or pneumatic strength test at 1.43 times the maximum allowable working pressure
(industrial PED standard)

Section: Clause; Paragraph: C.4; Page 14
- Maintain pressure for 30s has been proposed
- We suggest an alternative should be to maintain pressure for 5s and then helium leak test against a leak rate of 1,07 E-5
(Industrial standard utilized globally by most refrigeration companies to identify fine leaks)