Equipment classification
Thread Content
There is a tower vessel with a design pressure of 0.07 MPa, but it is classified as a Class I pressure vessel in the drawings; is it subject to supervision under the Pressure Vessel Regulations?
It does not meet the condition that the maximum operating pressure is greater than or equal to 0.1 MPa, and therefore is not subject to supervision under the Pressure Vessel Regulations.
It doesn’t meet the tolerance requirements, so of course it doesn’t count!
Marking it as Category I means it is manufactured in accordance with the standards for that type of container, merely to inflate the price, and should not be subject to regulatory oversight.
It is correct that atmospheric pressure towers are classified as Category 1 pressure vessels; there is nothing wrong with that.:)
It is neither governed by the Regulations nor regulated by the Code; it is simply a measure taken by the design unit to increase the safety factor of the equipment.
Personally, I think this way of phrasing is inappropriate. If it is believed that attention should be paid to the quality of equipment processing, it should be specified in the technical requirements rather than indicated within the category to highlight the importance of the equipment. Classification issues should be technical matters; classifying category two as category one is a technical error. Similarly, I believe classifying outer containers in a different way should also be considered a technical error.
I believe that it is highly irregular for design agencies to reclassify containers outside the specified category merely in order to increase the safety factor of the equipment. It must be a technical error.
It is a misclassification error, but for safety reasons, it is acceptable to raise the requirements and subject it to inspection as a type 1 container. Something similar has happened in our company as well: there was a container that shouldn’t have been classified in a certain way, but the customer insisted that it be classified as a category 2 container. The boss ordered us to follow the customer’s request, so we had no choice but to state on our drawings that \"At the customer’s request, this equipment is designed, manufactured, inspected, tested, and managed as a category 2 pressure vessel.\"
If the design documents specify it as Category 1, it must be manufactured and inspected in accordance with the requirements of Category 1. If it is deemed unnecessary, the design unit can be requested to make changes.
It should be designed, manufactured, and inspected in accordance with the standards for a certain type of container; however, it should be used in compliance with the requirements of relevant container regulations and is not subject to pressure vessel management
Is it just a classification error? The design pressure is also a problem; the minimum design pressure for the tower should be 0.1 MPa. The design pressure for atmospheric distillation columns in ordinary companies is usually set at 0.18 MPa
Hehe, maybe his name is just Ta, and the other aspects don’t meet the criteria for 4710;P
It can be designed, manufactured, and inspected as a type of container; however, supervision during inspection is not required.
“At the customer’s request, this equipment is designed, manufactured, inspected, accepted, and managed in accordance with the requirements for Class II pressure vessels. Is this okay too?
It is a drawing error on the part of the design unit; in terms of the nature of the error, it constitutes a technical mistake due to an incorrect classification. It should not fall under the scope of supervision. However, the design can be improved by setting higher requirements for the containers through technical specifications
Indeed, there should be no categorization, as it increases cost requirements