Is there anyone in the bar who took the second phase of the Pressure Vessel Auditor exam in 2015? If you run into any problems, share your exam experiences

Those who didn’t participate in the bar – none of them are answering

If you want to ask questions regarding this topic, please contact me. My QQ number is: 2651675489. It’s not convenient to communicate online due to the large amount of information!

The final theoretical question is: What are the risks associated with the larger-scale production of heat exchangers, and how can they be controlled? (15 points) Looking back at the second question: 1. There is a diagram of a vertical storage tank, not a tower, with packing inside; most of the calculations for the pressure-bearing components are provided in the question, and you are asked to give your own suggestions (8 points) (Note: It’s similar to that in 2012; it’s available online, so look for it.) 2. What are the differences between the reinforcement principles and rules of the equal area method and the stress analysis method? (7 points)

Are there any others going to take the exam? Please share the exam questions. Thank you to all the seniors

There are posts on this topic in the HaiChuan Forum; give it a search.

I hope those who participated in the second session in 2015 and the first session in 2016 can share their experiences. Thank you!

I want to know that too; I hope someone can share it so I can broaden my horizons

The first issue of 2016 hasn’t even been released yet; they are probably also preparing for the examiner’s exam. Past exam questions are indeed an excellent resource for preparation. But the purpose of learning is to improve oneself, so it is recommended that you go through the main standards and their definitions before the exam. At the same time, study the engineer training materials, and then summarize what you have learned in writing. Keep refining these summaries throughout the training period, including by incorporating the exam questions and experiences you gather. Actually, the biggest thing I took away from the trainer’s training (specifically for our cohort) was that everything had to be learned and prepared in advance on one’s own. Our training session focused on dissemination tasks, whether it was related to regulatory requirements or standard 150; during the training, no one told us what the key points were, and the types of questions in the exam had no direct connection to the content covered during training. More than half of the short-answer questions required participants to rely on their own experience and insights – there were no fixed answers, only the knowledge points that one thought should be considered. The analysis questions focused on issues that one encounters in actual design work, as well as calculations and similar things. Another type of analysis question wasn’t included in our training session either; it also had to be analyzed on one’s own. However, in the following sessions, such questions had a source – they were based on the definitions provided in the new standards. We hadn’t yet adopted the new standards at that time, but it was like getting an early exposure to them. Defenses are actually quite related to the courses; in our year, they were mainly connected to relevant topics. As a result, nearly 40% of the questions in the defenses could be answered by using standard definitions or by summarizing those definitions. Our colleagues used the materials from the previous training session as key references, and about 40% of the questions they faced during their defenses were related to those materials. Therefore, the content of the training can help us understand the general nature of the defenses. Personal opinion: Please forgive any inappropriate use of lol expressions:lol