Code Case 2695 and PE Involvement 1

[PipingEquipment]

We are a div 1 shop in the USA and want to use this code case for future vessels. Since this code case allows some methods of determining thickness from div 2 does this in turn mean a PE has to sign off on those calcs (since a PE has to sign off on all div 2 calcs/vessels)?
The only thing I found pertaining to this was a document put out by the Government of Alberta (Canada), and it specifically states a PE needs to sign off when using this code case, but I don't know if this is just a jurisdictional rule and isn't a requirement elsewhere.
Does anybody know if a PE is required when using this code case in the USA?

 

[TGS4]

Provisions (a) through (m) of Code Case 2695 do not address any RPE requirement. If you are a Div 1 shop, you ought to have access to the Code Case, in which situation you can verify this for yourself.

ABSA, the delegated regulatory agency for the Province of Alberta, has chosen (as is their and jurisdiction's prerogative) to impose additional requirements. Since Code Cases are not part of the Code and require acceptance by the jurisdiction, it would be advisable to check with each specific jurisdiction to ensure that they do or do not impose additional requirements.

 

[PipingEquipment]

Thank you for your input.

 

[abuanaselmasry]

Good question and Great reply.

The requirement of involvement of PE is very restrected requirement. Part 4 is just an alternative formulas and the vessel is still div.1 coded vessel. For Example, App 1.10 uses already forumals of the same concept of Div.2 and the design engineer can use it in lieu of normal UG-37 and 1-7 rules. Anyhow, local jurisdictions must be respected.

Regards,
M.Salaheldin
Static Equipment Mechanical Design Engineer