OMG... It will be inspected in 5 years, without a doubt. WHAT I AM ASKING IF THE FCA IS BETTER TO BE CALCULATED 2*INTERVAL OR NOT! It's simple as that the question. And I wouldn't work with you, thanks anyway.
Avoid further replying.
Good luck
You are confusing everything, read my thread and my reply again: I didn't ask for the frequency of inspection. I'm asking for the time used for the FCA.
Thanks anyway.
I didn't confuse FCA with CA, is the definition provided in API 579. And I've read the code and decided to use 5 years for FCA. I just asked if anyone would use 10 years instead of 5.
Thanks
Hello everyone.
I have a pressure vessel with an acceptable LTA and remaining life >10 years. It will be inspected in 5 years from now. I used 5 years to calculate the FCA. Should I use 10 years?
FCA definition says that is: "the corrosion allowance required for the future operational period...
Hello everyone.
I did a research in the design code trying to find a specific minimum distance between welds of re-inforcements. It seems that there is no restriction in how closer a nozzle can be put from another, just beware of the HAZ zone.
Does anyone know if there is a specific distance in...
Hello Soft2008. My equipment is ASME stamped.
Your case is easier, because no alteration were done in order to reach pressure. Based on API 510 (8.2.1 (d)) you can perform special NDT in lieu of testing (adequate techniques to ensure the integrity of the whole vessel: welds, shell, heads, etc.)...
Hello everyone,
I have a Rerated and Altered pressure vessel (i.e. MAWP increased and replacement of reinforcement pads in nozzles were done). The Rerating point of API 510 (8.2.1 (d)) says that the pressure test could be avoid if "the vessel integrity is confirmed by special nondestructive...
This is not a re-rating, is a 7.7 of API 510, establishing a MAWP with conservative material SA-283 Gr C and JE 1.0 instead of 0.70 but backed up with satisfactory UT and MT performed on weld (and also RT if it necessary). In the hypothetical case that the weld had defects it would have been...
Thank you all for your comments. This vessel is a case of Equipment with Minimal Documentation (no Nameplate, no design data and not operating in USA), so a 7.7 of API 510, was conducted. Now, the following procedure will be done:
1) to ensure that the weld has no defects (already tested with...
Thank you both pdiculous963 and racookpe1978 for your answear.
To make it clear, the weld has no cracks or other defects, this known by the Angular UT performed (probably a MT will be perform to ensure this). Laminations reachs the ZAC but are not inside the weld and nor cracks propagate from...
Hello. My case is a pressure vessel with no design data (0,70 by default). An ultrasonic inspection of welding were performed in order to increase this value. However, there were found laminations in shell, reaching the shell-head weld, so increasing vessel joint efficiency is not that easy...
