U STAMP REQUIREMENT 2

[Gowtham90]

Dear Experts

Greetings...

We had supplied a Jacketed cryogenic pressure vessel designed as per ASME Section 8 div 1 code case 2596-1.
Unfortunately our European manufacturer was not ASME approved Manufacturer but a PED appoved.

ASME INSPECTOR ( AI ) has witnessed the complete in-process inspection and signed off our QC dossier & design along with TPI report

Nameplate of the vessel does not have a U-Stamp but has a CS stamp as per Appendix 44 of ASME Section 8 div 1.

Our end user want a U-Stamp now.

My question is, IS IT MANDATORY to provide U-Stamp or do have any sort of exemption or waiver when we use code case 2596-1 and appendix 44

Thanks in advance for spending your precious time.

 

[oknow]

What is the opinion of your AIA?

 

[SnTMan]

Gowtham90, whether a given vessel is stamped or not is primarily a jurisdictinonal / contactural matter. A vessel may be designed, fabricated & inspected per Sec VIII, Div 1 and not stamped. Any desired information may be placed on the nameplate. If a vessel is not to be stamped, deviations may be made from the Code, such as fabrication by a non-Code shop, one not possesing a Certificate of Authorization.

On the other hand, if a vessel is to be stamped, required or not, it must meet all applicable rules, including fabrication by a Code shop.

I'd be very much surpirsed if you can get this vessel stamped after the fact.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[Gowtham90]

Dear Sir

oknow : AI couldn't justify the end user. He was insisting that as long as the end user approved data sheet specifies " no U- Stamp "
such a vessel is allowed.

SnTMan : Thanks a lot for the clarity, as you said we tried with many agencies for U-Stamping the existing vessel but failed to get
one. Our end client is now asking for site pneumatic test as per UG-100, in-order to accept these tanks. considering the
volume of stored energy in tank during pneumatic test and risk factors involved, the manufacturer is adamant in accepting to
do the test and delaying. Hope the issue is resolved with this test. I would be happy if you can guide me, if is it allowed
to such a test ( MAWP 22 BAR and pneumatic test pressure is 24 BAR )for a jacketed cryogenic pressure vessel at site as per
ASME

I once again thank you for the response.

 

[r6155]

“Our end user want a U-Stamp now.”

Your end user must pay the extra cost NOW.

Regards

 

[SnTMan]

Gowtham90, very murky situation. In general, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes are construction Codes. They don't generally apply to any activities occurring after completion and acceptance of the vessel. In the US these activities would usually be governed by the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspection (NBIC). In other jurisdictions, I honestly don't know.

As such, I'd say your proposed pressure test is neither prohibited or permitted by ASME Codes, it is out-of-scope. I'd further say that it is not a means to convert a non-complying vessel into a complying one. Instead it seems to be in the contractural realm, i.e. agreements among the involved parties.

I'd also say that if your vessel is of any volume at all, I'd be very reluctant to pneumatic test at that pressure.

It seems the end-user failed to specify a vital design parameter, i.e. U stamped. The user needs to make reasonalbe accomodations at his expense or eat the vessel and re-order correctly.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[oknow]

Gowtham90...it may be possible to have ASME U stamped but it will depend on several factors and acceptance by the AI/AIA. Your previous statement about the AI's reason for rejection is not a good one. Not sure on the level of experience. I would call his employers Home Office and run it by their technical staff. If the Design documents can comply with the ASME CODE, all the required examinations, inspections and tests have been conducted to the Code requirement, all the material used was ordered, received, inspected, markings documented and recorded and accepted, any required MTR'S reviewed/accepted it MAY be acceptable to Stamp and complete the MDR. I have been personally involved with similar situations at various levels, with meeting and not meeting the Code requirements. As stated by others check the Jurisdiction requirements at the point of installation. It may be that the customer found after construction it is required to be ASME Stamped.