Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
(OP)
Hi everyone,
I have been following this site for a while but never really post questions. There is more knowledge on here than I can ever interrupt, but I have some questions.
First I work where there are many pressure vessels that are used for gear process blasting or peening. These are double chamber vessels that allow contentious operation during exchange cycles of the media. The pressure vessels range from 250-450 gallons and were made to proper code requirements. Then a non code shop attached steel pads to mount a pneumatic vibrator. I don't think this is allowed, or is it? The vibrator acts like a hammer to help the media flow on humid days, but these thing hammer hundreds of time each minute. The pads are located where both tanks are welded together, so about mid point on the whole tank.
My understanding is you should not hammer onto a pressure vessel, or is that wrong?
So is having the blocks welded onto the pressure vessel after a certification, does that rendering the certification void?
Is having anything altered on the pressure vessel after the certification void if done by a non code shop?
Having any alteration been done requires a "R" stamp along with documentation required?
These are Division 1 pressure vessels, and I have been bring these concern to the company with resistance to have them repaired or replaced properly.
I have been following this site for a while but never really post questions. There is more knowledge on here than I can ever interrupt, but I have some questions.
First I work where there are many pressure vessels that are used for gear process blasting or peening. These are double chamber vessels that allow contentious operation during exchange cycles of the media. The pressure vessels range from 250-450 gallons and were made to proper code requirements. Then a non code shop attached steel pads to mount a pneumatic vibrator. I don't think this is allowed, or is it? The vibrator acts like a hammer to help the media flow on humid days, but these thing hammer hundreds of time each minute. The pads are located where both tanks are welded together, so about mid point on the whole tank.
My understanding is you should not hammer onto a pressure vessel, or is that wrong?
So is having the blocks welded onto the pressure vessel after a certification, does that rendering the certification void?
Is having anything altered on the pressure vessel after the certification void if done by a non code shop?
Having any alteration been done requires a "R" stamp along with documentation required?
These are Division 1 pressure vessels, and I have been bring these concern to the company with resistance to have them repaired or replaced properly.





RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
I have know this to be wrong for years and myself and other employees have brought this to the attention to the owner of that company, but his feeling was it is no big deal. That company does not have the proper training or qualifications to perform the alteration, and once the alteration were made there was no documentation provide to anyone.
I know that people lives are on the line and they are not aware of the dangers. I have contacted the media about this, but it is just my allegations and it seems that until something happens they don't want to be bothered. I have also contacted the National Board of Pressure Vessels Inspectors and made them aware of the altercations, which they do know how serious this to be, and will be doing inspections. I also think that none of these pressure vessels are registered in the states that they are located in, or if they need to be. As far as construction standards, there were none in place for the alteration, anyone that worked for that company would weld on the pressure vessels that was required.
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
Any work done on an ASME VIII pressure vessel should only be completed by an 'R' stamp certified shop (with all of the bells/whistles). The repair/alteration work would need to be overseen by an AI and the work documented with an AI signed R-1 form.
If the owner of the company doesn't appear to care, he might change his tune if the state board knocks on his door. In Illinois, pressure equipment appears to fall under the jurisdiction of the: Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal. They should be able to answer or respond to any concerns that you have.
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
The local Fire department does do yearly inspections, but I don't think they ever asked about the pressure vessels. OSHA was also notified this and they did recommend that the vessels be repaired or replaced, but nothing was ever done.
Every pressure vessel that had an alteration or modification was never marked with a "R" stamp, and this was always done by a non code shop. Myself as well as many others performed the alteration from instruction of the owner, when any questioned this they would be threaten with their jobs, so after awhile no one would raise the issue anymore. There is one pressure vessel that does have a "R" stamp and was done by a certified shop, but they only welded the blocks for the vibrators and not the ring, they never knew about the ring alteration.
Some of the people that I have been trying to make aware of these issues, look at it as I am just trying to make problems for the company and I should have let people know about this years ago. I have let people know about this years ago, but no one ever followed through. I was just a small voice (and not the only voice) in a larger company. Anyone that can offer help I appreciate anything, and Please continue to add comments about these issues.
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
In some of the states it is required to be registered and inspected, others no inspection is required. Those inspectors that know where the pressure vessels are located will be looking into the issue and inspections. I have provided the most information to them and will answer any question they do have, but as I said it has been moving slow. The people at the plants that I have been in contact with are either eager to the issue or the complete opposite, meaning no further responds back or seem to just drop the ball. This is been somewhat typical from the way others in the past have left the issue up in the air.
If anyone can offer any support or guidance to me that would be great. I am just a small shop that know the dangers with pressure vessels, but am not an ASME code shop. I am thinking that the company that wants me to produce the manifolds have had an issue or problem that they are not telling me. If they made the manifolds in the past, then why are they not currently build those? The manifolds is something I, myself will stay away from, but if I can have a code shop build them, that would be something I feel comfortable with.
My claims to the pressure vessels is something that is easily to verify in a couple of minutes, and those that do have the ASME tag attached, they can use that information to request the approved prints used to produce and test the tanks, and this can be used to again verify my claims.
One thing that I have been asked, and I don't know the answer is, what is the life expectancy of the pressure vessels? Being that they use an abrasive media and I have seen and repaired one that wore out.
Sorry for the long post.
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
I'm sure some of the owners of the equipment are not too happy to hear about this, but this is a major safety issue that deserved a thorough follow-through. It's not always easy to be the bearer of bad news, so I have to commend you for following through on this.
Cheers,
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
Believe me I know it is bad news and how companies look at me for telling them about the issue. The company that did the alteration is not a small fly by night company at all, but knew this to be wrong and ignored the fact. That company feels it to not be a big deal and I know of at least one pressure vessel that was documented incorrect after it was repaired, part way.
RE: Pressure vessel with pneumatic vibrator
They were able to obtain the original ASME tag from the machine builder, and the inspector allowed it to pass. When he had told this to me I couldn't believe it, how could this pass, and the inspector could have no way requested the original documents of the tank from the National Board to prove it to be compliant. The inspector only used the prints provided from the machine builder, and never questioned why the ASME tag was removed.
There was also another tank inspected, but it was the wrong tank the inspector looked at (different inspector), and when I told him that, he seemed to become upset with me saying I should have reported this way earlier with more details. How much more details could I have provided, I gave him the name of the machine company, The manufacturer of the pressure vessel, the location in the plant along with the address, and a person to contact at the plant. I don't think he will be going back to look again or look at the others I told him about. So how should I proceed now? It almost seems that there is a lack of effort or safety from some people, which is what I have found when I did work for the company.