elapsed time for construction after design 1

[JJCist]

Hi,

I would like to verify if there is a time constraint for fabrication of an pressure vessel after design, and where can I find this. According to me I am only allowed 6 months after a new addendum / code have been issued to design according to the older revision and that I am not allowed to manufacture (Stamp on nameplate) a vessel as design 2001 add 2002 in a year of manufacture 2005. If somebody can please guide me to where this is written in ASME or the South African Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, I will highly appreciate this.

 

[codeeng]

Could you confirm where the 6 month limitation comes from? Normally, at the start of a project, we specify the current edition/addenda to be used, but some projects can last 5 years or more. Your Sasol II and III projects were good examples of this.

 

[jte]

Hannes-

When a new code edition or addenda is issued (nominally) in July, its use is optional 'til the following January. However, once a vessel is contracted for, the contract date between the buyer and fabricator sets the edition/addenda which will be used until the vessel is complete. Typically the contract date is interpreted as the date the purchase order (PO) was issued. If the PO date lands in the July-Dec timeframe then the buyer should specify which of the two editions will be used. The date of completion of the vessel and its stamping and paperwork signing ceremony is not relevant to the edition which is used.

Not doing business this way could have severe consequences on long lead vessels with 18-24 month delivery times: If a contract is entered into in 2005 but the 2006 addenda has substatial changes (say to the shell thickness) and had to be the edition of record, then the fabricator would effectively be paralyzed. Think of all those heavy wall reactors on the Sasol jobs...

Ref: Interpretation VIII-1-95-29 (Int. Vol 37, page 641)
Question (2): What Edition and Addenda of the Code is to be recorded on the Manufacturer's Data Report Forms?

Answer (2): The current mandated Edition and Addenda of the Code at the time of contract between the user and the Manufacturer.

jt

 

[LSThill]

jte (Mechanical)

Thank you for the Ref: Interpretation VIII-1-95-29 (Int. Vol 37, page 641)

 

[JJCist]

codeeng-

the 6 months is better explained by jte.

Jte,

Thanks for the refference, I will have a look into this.

If for example I start a vessel design in this year (2005)that state 2001 add 2002 as design code on the data sheet, may I use the latest software (CodeCalc, Compress, PV elite etc.)and stil on the nameplate stamp 81-01-A-02-W? This according to me is not acceptable and must be stamped 81-04-O-W. To relocate the driver for older software is difficult with an IT department, not to mention struggeling through hand calcs that take ages (if you find a hard copy).


A last question:
Is there a time constraint for manufacture after design? Eg. I have designed a vessel today and was A-approved by a 3dr party. Is the manufacture allowed to only start manufacture this vessel in say 5 years time, provided he get material certified to the same design specifications? I do not see a problem with this, as long as the design is for that specific vessel and not a coppied calc for an existing vessel with just a re-name/tag change.

HannesC

 

[deanc]

Talk to your AIA or Inspection agency. You may be able to write something into your Quality System to address this.

The Interp. may get you a start.

 

[jte]

Hannes-

In your first question you failed to state when the PO was issued. Assuming the fabricator got the PO in June of 2005 then the correct edition to use would be the 2004 Ed, no Addenda. Using the 2001 A'02 would be incorrect - but arguably still produce a safe product. As an owner/user I would not accept such a design without some convincing. However, if the owner/user and the jurisdiction and insurance company agree (in writing!) then I might be persuaded. It's probably more effort to explain the situation to everyone and get everyone to agree in writing than it would be to just redesign the darn vessel to the current code.

Your last question: I'm not aware of any constraint. Again, you failed to state when the PO was issued.

In general, see deanc's (much more succinct) comment above.

jt