Steamfitter - Pipefitter (SFP)

2022 Guide - Common First Period Pipe Trades Package (33 Modules) Comments

Date: 1/11/2022 3:03:04 PM
Module: 070105f
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: CSA Classification System for carbon steel SMAW electrodes: in the 2nd bullet, talking about tensile strength for CSA, should be interpreted by multiplying the value by 10 (not dividing by 10). Using the example shown E4918 (which is equivalent to AWS E7018), the 49 should be interpreted as 49 x 10 = 490 mega Pascals (MPa). An approximate conversion of MPa to psi tensile strength in the AWS system is multiply MPa by 145. So, 490 MPa x 145 = 71,068 psi, which is close to the 70,000 psi tensile strength of E7018. If you interpret the 49 by dividing by 10, you get 4.9 MPa, which when multiplied by 145 to convert to psi, is only 710 psi. If you accept this comment, it will need to be applied on pages 10 and 13.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 1/5/2023 9:46:51 AM
Module: 210101a
Version: 24
Page: 2
Comment: This comment applies to ILM A210101a Glossary of Terms (not 210101a Safety Legislation Regulations and Industry Policy in the Trades). ILM A210101a is NOT available in the pull-down list of ILMs in the 'Leave a Comment' section of the ilm.nait.ca website. On page 2 of the ILM A210101a, the term AISC is missing. The term AISC is found multiple times in ILM 210101e Pipe Trades Codes, so I think it should be added to the Glossary of Terms ILM.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/16/2022 10:30:26 AM
Module: 210101b
Version: 24
Page: 10
Comment: In the first few paragraphs of page 10 of ILM 210101b version 24, and possibly other locations, old rigging terminology is used. The terms Safety Factor and Breaking Strength have been replaced with Design Factor and Ultimate Strength respectively. See IPT Pipe Trades pages 436-437 "Load Safety Terminology", other rigging books, and OHS. I suggest a search and replace should occur of the old terms with the new terms in all rigging related ILMs.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 11/5/2019 9:14:28 AM
Module: 210101d
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: I have the following questions/comments: 1) Doesn't module standards require a Self-Test in every module? This module doesn't have a Self-Test. 2) The answers for Objective Five Exercise on page 35 are missing for questions 3 and 4 (from page 29). 3) The questions for Objective Six Exercise on page 33 are numbered incorrectly (number 2 is missing). P.S. In this ILM comment web form, for trade SFP, the pull-down list for "TRADE PERIOD", only has options for years 1, 2, and 3. I suggest you add a trade period 4. Also for that same pull-down list, it should state "Please select a period" instead of "Please select a trade"
Status: Implemented

Date: 11/25/2019 8:22:55 AM
Module: 210101e
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: This 21010e Pipe Trades Codes ILM has many problems, it is surprising it got past the initial validation stage. The biggest problem is, this ILM does not have the same Objectives nor Outcome as the course outline (CO), and therefore is not aligned. An ILM author should not be allowed to change the Outcome nor Objectives as they see fit. Only the PAC is authorized to change Outcomes and Objectives. It is the ILM author’s obligation to align with the PAC developed CO. This ILM has way too much detail about codes. As a representative of a training institution, I was invited by AIT to the PAC committee meetings when the common first-period CO was developed, and this process started about five years ago. One representative was invited from each training institute and all four pipe trades PAC’s were represented at all meetings: gasfitter, plumber, sprinklerfitter, and steamfitter. I distinctly remember all four PAC’s stating this Pipe Trades Codes subject should not require students to memorize or know any details about any specific codes. For example, sprinklerfitters were adamant they didn’t want to have their students be required know the details about B149 or ASME BPVC or other codes that don’t apply to them. And other trades had similar concerns about codes that didn’t apply to them. This is also why there were only 3 hours allotted for this subject. I can assure you the intent of this ILM in the eyes of all four PAC’s, was to give a brief overview of codes. E.g. definitions of codes, standards, and differences between codes and standards. Plus to be aware of some of the codes that apply to piping that is relevant to all four trades, but only at a summary level. The PAC’s suggested the ILM subject be named “Introduction” to codes, but that word was rejected by AIT. I hope these comments help guide the authors to the PAC’s intended content.
Status: Implemented

Date: 1/5/2023 9:52:16 AM
Module: 210102e
Version: 24
Page: 6
Comment: The acronym AISC is first used in this ILM on page 6 but the acronym is not defined until page 16. I believe it is best practice to define an acronym at the first instance of its use, so on page 6 it should be defined. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). The definition of AISC could then optionally be removed from page 16.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/8/2021 11:30:22 AM
Module: 210102f
Version: 22
Page: 4
Comment: I submitted the comment below to the old ILM's 060102d and 070102d a long time ago and was hoping it would carry through to this new ILM as well, but I see it has not been applied, so I submit it again here. On page 4 it states a distinction between copper "tube" and copper "tubing" but the explanation given contradicts IPT Pipe Trades pages 91 and 97, copper.org website, ASTM, and other standards. At the bottom of page IPT 97, it states the trade practice used to distinguish between tube and tubing "is not an official way to designate copper tube and should be avoided". IPT explains that they are both copper tube, and distinction should be based on the standard that the tube was made to match, specifically, diameter sizing type K, L, M, DWV is ID based vs ACR, GP which are OD based. The IPT definition also matches copper.org website definition, which references ASTM specifications for the various copper tubes. With reference and in conformance to IPT, copper.org website, and ASTM standards, I suggest the wording in the module be changed to state the copper tube types K, L, M, and DWV are designated by ID size, whereas copper tube type ACR and GP is designated by OD size and wall thickness. Eliminate the distinction between tube and tubing, which is not a standards supported designation, and make the distinction based on copper type and sizing; K, L, M, DWV vs ACR, GP.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/7/2023 12:11:09 PM
Module: 210103bA
Version: 24
Page:
Comment: ILM 210103bA - Welding Part A. There is no Self Test in this ILM. I thought all ILM's had to have a Self Test.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 9/23/2019 3:24:28 PM
Module: 210103bB
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: Other than mentioning the cutting attachment on page 21, objective 4 is not discussed at all, nor is there any info about proper cutting techniques, kerf lines or anything else that was in the old module for Oxy-fuel cutting. Missing a lot of important information.
Status: Implemented

Date: 3/13/2024 11:28:16 AM
Module: 210103bB
Version: 24
Page: 17
Comment: In the Draw Limit text, 2nd last paragraph, it states the limit is no more than 1/7th of volume per hour. I believe this is outdated, and has been reduced to a slower draw rate based on 2 working conditions, according to CGA G-1 2009 code. G-1 code now states the maximum draw rate is 1/10 per hour for intermittent use and 1/15 per hour for continuous use.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 4/27/2020 11:28:35 AM
Module: 210103bC
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: This is aimed more at the course outline than the module.... in the course outline it says '5. Identify arc welding equipment.'. the ONLY welding machine mentioned in the module relate to SMAW (stick welding). I believe that is what is referred to as 'arc welding'. There is also MIG welding, TIG welding, Plasma arc welding, etc. If 'arc welding' is referencing SMAW that needs to be clarified. If it is to include all 'arc welding' we need to include more info on other equipment.
Status: Implemented

Date: 9/8/2022 1:08:58 PM
Module: 210104a
Version: 24
Page: 20
Comment: ILM 210104a Version 24, pages 20-24, and the related activity on page 51. These pages are in Objective Three (Line Types) and are describing Section Views, which are a special type of orthographic view. Orthographic views are not introduced until Objectives Four and Five. I suggest these pages be moved to the end of Objective Five page 42, perhaps just ahead of the Objective Five Activity, for a better flow of content.
Status: Implemented

Date: 9/25/2023 8:35:18 AM
Module: 210104b
Version: 24
Page: 34
Comment: Self-Test question #9 on page 34, seems out of place for this ILM. Title block and scale rulers are described in ILM 210104c. I suggest this question be moved to 210104c.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 12/13/2022 1:48:21 PM
Module: 210105f
Version: 24
Page: 15
Comment: The first word of the last paragraph on page 15 of ILM 210105f version 24, is misspelled. There are 2 r's in Torricelli, and the first instance of 'i' is missing (following the r's).
Status: Implemented

Date: 12/15/2022 11:26:33 AM
Module: 210105g
Version: 24
Page: 10
Comment: In the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 10 of ILM 210105g ver. 24, it states "... avoided by using different materials ...". Actually, different metals touching, causes electrolysis. To avoid electrolysis in piping you must NOT use different metals; they must all be the same. Everywhere different metals are touching is a likely point of electrolysis. To avoid electrolysis, use electrical insulators, such as: electricians' tape, rubber, dielectric unions, etc.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 4/22/2021 11:51:52 AM
Module: 210105g
Version: 21
Page: 1
Comment: In ILM 210105g Principles of Electricity, Objective One lists electrolysis, but there is no content or information about that topic in this ILM.
Status: Implemented


Archived Comments

Year: 2022

1/11/2022 3:05:16 PM
Module: 210103bC
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: CSA Classification System for carbon steel SMAW electrodes: in the 2nd bullet, talking about tensile strength for CSA, should be interpreted by multiplying the value by 10 (not dividing by 10). Using the example shown E4918 (which is equivalent to AWS E7018), the 49 should be interpreted as 49 x 10 = 490 mega Pascals (MPa). An approximate conversion of MPa to psi tensile strength in the AWS system is multiply MPa by 145. So, 490 MPa x 145 = 71,068 psi, which is close to the 70,000 psi tensile strength of E7018. If you interpret the 49 by dividing by 10, you get 4.9 MPa, which when multiplied by 145 to convert to psi, is only 710 psi. If you accept this comment, it will need to be applied on pages 31 and 32.
Status: Implemented

Year: 2021

1/5/2021 10:48:35 AM
Module: 070102c
Version: 21
Page: 12
Comment: NPC code reference needs updating. Section 1.1 General- * 1.1.1 - Application * 1.3 - Referenced Documents *Table 1.3.1.2 Section 2.2 Materials and Equipment - * 2.2.1 General Section 2.3 Piping - *2.3.2.6 Mechanical Joints
Status: Declined

1/5/2021 10:39:07 AM
Module: 070102c
Version: 21
Page: 10
Comment: on both page 10 and 11 the minimum size for glass pipe has a typo(apparently 1/2 was inadvertently replaced with 1/4) so: pressure pipe should be 1/2" through to 4" and DWV should be 1-1/2" through to 6"
Status: Implemented

1/5/2021 10:17:11 AM
Module: 070102c
Version: 21
Page: 8
Comment: The code reference to the NPC needs to be updated. Section 1.1 General- * 1.1.1 - Application * 1.3 - Referenced Documents *Table 1.3.1.2 Section 2.2 Materials and Equipment - * 2.2.6 _Ferrous Pipe and Fittings - *2.2.6.1 Cast Iron Drainage and Vent Pipe and Fittings - *2.2.6.5 Cast Iron Water Pipes - *2.2.6.6 Screwed Cast Iron Water Fittings Section 2.3 Piping - *2.3.2.1 - Caulked Lead Joints - *2.3.2.6 Mechanical Joints - *2.2.2.7 Cold Caulked Joints Appendix - Table A2.2.5, A2.2.6 and A2.2.7
Status: Declined

Year: 2020

1/24/2020 12:46:39 PM
Module: 210102h
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: At one time in our ILM’s, concerning the subject of hanging and supporting pipe, there was a couple of paragraphs that really outlined one of the key learnings for that subject. It is important enough that it should be re-inserted somewhere; near the front as an introductory or as part of a summary in 210102h Bolting and Fasteners. ***Static or Dynamic Loads*** One of the factors considered in the choice of fasteners for a specific job is any force acting on the fastener that could cause it to fail. A fastener that would be used to do nothing but withstand a constant force acting in one direction is said to have a static load. The hook carrying the weight of a picture hanging on a wall would have a static load. Fasteners used in piping systems are usually designed for dynamic loads because the pipe is constantly expanding and contracting due to temperature changes. Vibration from pumps or equipment impose dynamic loads on our fasteners. Changes in pressure inside the lines cause dynamic loads through pressure thrust. Most of the fasteners used to anchor or support piping are designed to withstand dynamic loads. Some commercial epoxy adhesives are available with dynamic load rating.
Status: Implemented

Year: 2019

10/11/2019 2:54:42 PM
Module: 210102gB
Version: 21
Page: 34
Comment: Objective Three Exercise answers: re-number from 1-8 and delete the ninth response as it is duplicated from the previous answer.
Status: Implemented

10/11/2019 2:53:48 PM
Module: 210102gA
Version: 21
Page: 37
Comment: Figure 53 – Offset disc butterfly valve No longer shows the correct image, needs to be changed. (It was correct in the last SF/PF ILM on valves) On Page 37 Figure 50, it should be titled Weir-type diaphragm valve
Status: Implemented

10/11/2019 2:51:55 PM
Module: 210102gB
Version: 21
Page: 23
Comment: second last paragraph: It would seem to me that CSA could be considered a domestic standard organization.
Status: Implemented

10/11/2019 2:50:25 PM
Module: 210102gB
Version: 21
Page: 1
Comment: Fix the pagination so that table 1 will be on the same and opposing page as table 2, and it will make the learning easier and reduce the frustration caused by having to flip the page to use table 1.
Status: Declined

10/11/2019 2:49:04 PM
Module: 210102gA
Version: 21
Page: 52
Comment: In objective two exercise, the questions 1 through 6 all come from some info that was deleted in this new version of the valve ILMs. Check old ilm 070104hB (version 4- page 11, newer version maybe on different page) for the information on "Receiving and Installing a Valve". It should be re-inserted and then the questions 1-6 would be fine, or remove questions 1-6. My vote is to put the info back in, as it was pertinent and valuable.
Status: Implemented

10/11/2019 2:45:49 PM
Module: 210102gB
Version: 21
Page:
Comment: Table of Contents: under Objective Four, Objective Four Exercise reads Objective Three Exercise Page One: Objective Three reads Objective One Page 11: Objective Three Exercise reads Objective One Page 33: Objective Two Exercise Answers are actually the answers for Objective Three, and are repeated in the Obj 3 answers, so the answers for the 13 questions from Objective Two in 210102gA are not there.
Status: Implemented

1/1/2019 12:00:00 AM
Module: 070102b
Version: 7.2
Page: 24
Comment: Under the heading "Metallic Ring Gaskets" the section "Combination type metallic ring gaskets include the trade name Flexatallic..." refers to a spiral wound or flat ring gasket as defined on Section 5 page 235 of the IPT's Pipe Trades Handbook not a metallic ring gasket.
Status: Implemented

Return to Comments   Order Modules