Corrosion Allowance 3

[aiwa7777]

Hi Fellows,
We have issued a purchase order for a ASME U stamped pressure vessel. Specification states that SI units shall be used.

Vendor has provided calcs in imperial units with a corrosion allowance of 1/8". We have specified a corrosion allowance of 3.2 mm in purchase order.

Vendor replies that 1/8" CA is acceptable for 3.2 mm as 1/8" is imperial equivalent of 3.2 mm.

Owner is not accepting this as Owner says that 1/8" is not equivalent to 3.2 mm as 1/8" = 3.175 mm which is less than 3.2 mm.

Please provide your thoughts.

Thank you.

 

[SnTMan]

This kind of thing is often how an entity avoids paying for a vessel. After enough paperwork and back and forth among the parties, this issue will be settled in one way or another, and an equally insigificant issue will be found to take its place.

Regards,

Mike

 

[SnTMan]

Said "avoids", might have more properly said "delays".

 

[TJOrlowski]

I'm too young to remember, but I've been regaled about the good old days when customers would visit a fabricator's shop, meet the engineers/salespeople, inspect the facilities, view projects in process, review the quality program and meet quality personnel.

Business was done with a handshake, and if there were clerical, or actual quality issues, they were resolved without a customer holding payment hostage in order to get service.

We had a customer last year request a $750.00 credit for "engineering time" because we submitted a U-1 form with a typo on it: we listed a 14" nozzle when the approved drawing, as built drawing, and actual unit had the correct 12" nozzle. I wonder if it was the same guy who says 1/8" will not work for 3.2mm.

-TJ Orlowski