×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Code Case 2695 and PE Involvement

Code Case 2695 and PE Involvement

Code Case 2695 and PE Involvement

(OP)
We are a div 1 shop in the USA and want to use this code case for future vessels. Since this code case allows some methods of determining thickness from div 2 does this in turn mean a PE has to sign off on those calcs (since a PE has to sign off on all div 2 calcs/vessels)?
The only thing I found pertaining to this was a document put out by the Government of Alberta (Canada), and it specifically states a PE needs to sign off when using this code case, but I don't know if this is just a jurisdictional rule and isn't a requirement elsewhere.
Does anybody know if a PE is required when using this code case in the USA?

RE: Code Case 2695 and PE Involvement

Provisions (a) through (m) of Code Case 2695 do not address any RPE requirement. If you are a Div 1 shop, you ought to have access to the Code Case, in which situation you can verify this for yourself.

ABSA, the delegated regulatory agency for the Province of Alberta, has chosen (as is their and jurisdiction's prerogative) to impose additional requirements. Since Code Cases are not part of the Code and require acceptance by the jurisdiction, it would be advisable to check with each specific jurisdiction to ensure that they do or do not impose additional requirements.

RE: Code Case 2695 and PE Involvement

(OP)
Thank you for your input.

RE: Code Case 2695 and PE Involvement

Good question and Great reply.

The requirement of involvement of PE is very restrected requirement. Part 4 is just an alternative formulas and the vessel is still div.1 coded vessel. For Example, App 1.10 uses already forumals of the same concept of Div.2 and the design engineer can use it in lieu of normal UG-37 and 1-7 rules. Anyhow, local jurisdictions must be respected.

Regards,
M.Salaheldin
Static Equipment Mechanical Design Engineer

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources