3rd party desing review according to ASME B31.3 and / or BPVC

[cardin]

I have worked with PED (Pressure Equipment Directive) in Europe. Now i've recieved a question on desing review according to ASME B31.3.
I'm not sure if this has been talked about before, but i would like to know what the restrictions / demands are on 3rd party control of the design. In PED the design has to be approved by a notified body (NOBO), (design review), it seems to me that ASME is more open and a 3rd party verification is not needed what is the correct way to approve a design of a pressure system within ASME B31.3 and ASME BPVC. I know that inspection under fabrication must be done by an approved (ASME) inspector.

So it boils down to 3 questions
1. Does one need a 3rd party verification from a NOBO, or can this be done by an engineering consultant?
2. Can the consultant write a design review statement that shows the vessel design is reviewed?
3. Can the design be built after a design review statement is made.

 

[GHartmann]

I am not in any way an expert but the BPVC and ANSI B31.3 approach the subject differently.

For the BPVC, the vessel fabricator will be responsible for providing an ASME code stamp, making and submitting calculations, and filling out code paperwork. Some companies may require third party verification from somebody like Lloyds.

For piping systems the Owner/Operator and Designer are responsible for ensuring the installation is in compliance.

Here is an example:

Quote:
Responsibilities
The following responsibilities are applicable at LANL:
1) Owner - The Owner is the Design Authority. See Acronyms and Definitions sections in ESM Chapter 1 Section Z10 and Chapter 17, Pressure Safety.
2) Designer - The Designer is the Design Agency.
3) One of the signoffs on a piping work package must reflect an "Owner's Inspector" review. This means:
The person signing must have the minimum experience of 340.4(b), and The person signing must have verified, to the extent necessary, that code and engineering design requirements for examination and testing are met (341.4.1).
Endquote

Depending of the scope of work involved the Owner/Operator could be responsible for the QA/QC and inspections or could have a construction company provide this undertaking.

Hope this helps. Sorry if I unintentionally stepped of the toes of any piping or mechanical engineers.

We have a saying where I work: "It ain't that simple!"

G.Hartmann
BSChE NC State University

 

[XL83NL]

For differences in ASME B31.3 and PED get a hold of NPR CEN TR 14549. I may help ya.
For differences in ASME BPVC and PED just google. I believe ASME self wrote an article on the differences.

The current PED 'version', directive 97/23/EC, will be replaced starting June 2015 by directive PED 2014/68/EU.

 

[cardin]

Thank you both for the reply. I am aware of the change in PED, but thank you for pointing that out. I will try to get a hold of the TR.

 

[ijzer]

Depending on the design pressure and the volume ( or pipe diameter in case of piping) and the medium inside the pipe the PED will show you which category you are in. With this category you have to select a module. The selected module tells you if design and/ or fabrication approval by a NoBo is required.

 

[cardin]

Ijzer, thank you for pointing that out however i'm a specialist in PED so this was clear to me, but perhaps it helps someone else. I'm unfortunately no specialist in the ASME BPVC or B31.3 codes i mostly work with the EN codes.

My question is about the need for a 3rd party (like a NOBO) in ASME. As far as I know now doesn't ASME ask for a 3rd party control and certification like PED does. I would like to know if i'm correct there. As i understand is (in ASME BPVC, B31.3) the designer responsible where the Quality department will have the role of "double check" this is something that can be done by the designing company, the manufacturing has to be inspected by an ASME approved inspector.
This all means that you do not have a design approval as in PED (B1 for example), where a NOBO issues a design approval certficate. I would like to be corrected if i got it wrong.

 

[Duwe6]

"ASME approved inspector" is a misnomer. For ASME Section I Boilers and Section VIII, an Authorized Inspector is mandatory. The AI is from an insurance agency that is willing and able to write insurance on the vessels(s) being overseen by that AI. AI has to be involved from calculations & design all the way through to the hydro and applying the nameplate. The fabrication cannot start until these have been approved by the AI. And yes, the designer of record must certify that his design has been calculated and that the vessel will meet ASME. At this point, the designer is done. The vessel fabricator, the folks that hold the ASME Code stamp, completely take over. A stamp-holder is entirely responsible for the fabrication, to include verifying the design & calc's. Anything past the preliminary design & calc's are between the fabricator and his AI.

For ASME B31.3, there is no such requirement. Per this Code, the Owner is required to have an Inspector that represents the Owner. Due to the expense, a lot of Owners [too many IMHO] ignore that requirement and have the contractor 'just build it' and 'send me the papers'.

Thus, there is a LOT of difference between ASME Sect's I & VIII, and the pipe Code B31.3.

 

[cardin]

I found out that ASME B31.3 was different yes. For me working in the EU it is strange to notice that piping hasn't got requirements on the design like i'm used to over here. Cat III piping in PED requires a NOBO.

I understand from what you are writing that you need to have an AI involved to verifiy the design and approve it accordingly. This also means that the manufacturer takes over the design an chooses his own AI that's not necessarily the same AI. This is not a NOBO like over here, but an insurance company that is willing to insure the vessel in question.

ASME B31.3 hasn't got this kind of "security" for the design review included, but sets the owner responsible from start to finish.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.