Thread Content
Section 2.13, \"Material Substitution\", of TSG R0004-1009 \"Regulations for Fixed-Volume Vessels\" stipulates that any substitution of materials for the main pressure-bearing components requires written approval from the design unit. Section 2.1.5, \"Material Substitution\", of TSG 21-2016 \"Regulations for Large-Volume Vessels\" states that substituting materials for pressure-bearing components also requires written approval from the original design unit. Then, is approval from the original design unit necessary for substituting materials for the main pressure-bearing components as well as ordinary pressure-bearing components in atmospheric-pressure vessels?
In a pressure vessel at normal pressure, there is no such thing as primary pressure-bearing components and ordinary pressure-bearing components. . .
Main pressure-bearing components and general pressure-bearing components of atmospheric-pressure vessels? I don’t understand! :lol
This post was last edited by Teisei on 2017-2-6 at 22:48. Normal pressure is not within the scope of regulation by the Special Equipment Safety Law; anything not explicitly stipulated by law is allowed. Therefore, don’t start with those two documents you mentioned – instead, check whether there are any requirements related to safety standardization
In a pressure vessel at normal pressure, there is no such thing as primary pressure-bearing components and ordinary pressure-bearing components.
There’s definitely no need for it; there are no security risks.
Is borrowing that compressed element requires design approval? Even without distinguishing between primary stressed elements and general stressed elements
The key issue is whether a design signature is required for its substitute materials
The key issue is whether a design signature is required for substituting a stressed component
Since the regulations do not specify this, it depends on what is stated in your organization’s quality assurance system documents; just follow those guidelines