PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
(OP)
COULD ANYONE TELL ME IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS ARE EQUIVALENT TO PD5500 2000 CAT 3.
Option 1 Design according to AD Merkblatt 2000+PED 97/23/EC Module G category IV +CE marking materials according to EN standards
Option 2 Design according to ASME code section VIII Div1+U stamp materials according to ASME II A/D.
Option 1 Design according to AD Merkblatt 2000+PED 97/23/EC Module G category IV +CE marking materials according to EN standards
Option 2 Design according to ASME code section VIII Div1+U stamp materials according to ASME II A/D.





RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
I think you've got a little confused.
PD5500 is a design code, as is AD Merblatt.
PED 97/23/EC is a European Directive.
PD5500 Category 3 is a very open category, you do not have to do any NDE, and there isn't any requirement for third party intervention.
PED 97/23/EC is a requirement for any vessel that will be used in Europe. Module G requires third party involvement inlcuding a European Design Examination for which you will recieve a certificate that lasts for 10 years against the design.
When you produce a vessel to PED 97/23/EC then, assuming that it does not fall into sound engineering practice as defined in Article 3 Paragraph 3 you would always CE mark the vessel.
You can produce a vessel to PD5500 cat.3 under Module G if you so wish. The thing with the PED is that you must meet the Essential Safety Requirements, there are also limits to what category you can/cannot use (as defined in Article 3, such as sound engineering practice).
In answer to your question though, PD5500 Cat 3. is a loose code with no third party involvement. Category 1 does not have to have third party involvment but usually does.
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
If we already have a vessel that was designed and previously manufactured to PD5500 Cat 3 module G to be re- produced again could we use exactly the same drawings but drop the module G to avoid third party inspection.
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
If the vessel is to be used in the EU then you must apply the appropriate module. If the vessel is a category IV vessel then you must use Module G (or another module for Category IV). As such, for a repeat vessel to Module G, you would need to have third party involvement from a notified body for every aspect except design appraisal, assuming that a design examination certificate was obtained for the original vessel and it is still valid (validity lasts for 10 years as longs as the structure of the pressure housing and attachments to the pressure housing do not alter).
If the vessel is not to be used in the EU then it is dependant upon the local and/or national requirements applicable to the end site and the customer's requirements.
Hope this helps.
Fawkes
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
"Code" and "Module" are different things.
You could manufacture to PD 5500 Cat. 3 or to ASME, but whatever the choose is, chiness manufacturer or whichever manufacturer abroad the UE and his legal representative in the UE must contact an approved Notified Body for the assessment and declare conformity with PED 97/23/EC.
Regards from Barcelona
G. GarcĂa
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
Fawkes and ggarciae have explained it like it is. To find out more about PED 97/23/EC, go to- http://ped.eurodyn.com/. The full text is available there, along with guidelines, etc.
Make sure your Chinese manufacturer is familiar with PED (i.e has supplied vessels into EU or dependancies in recent years). They are more likely to have experience with ASME VIII then with other international codes that could be used with the PED.
I have had experience with purchasing pressure equipment in China, but not under PED requirements, as it was for a Chinese project. I found even with just ASME VIII vessels you are likely to be asked to approve use of Chinese "equivalent" materials - PED goes further in that you require a Particular Materials Appraisal for the materials proposed (requiring Notifed Body involvement for a Category IV vessel, as I understand it). ASME has produced a guide for stamp holders on what additional actions they must take to meet PED requirements.
Regards,
John
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
RE: PD5500 ALTERNATIVE SPEC
It was a few years ago, but as I recall the problems weren't huge - we had some issues with support design for one or two of the vessels, and ended up providing the manufacturer with a design we were happy with. We also had reluctance from another manufacturer to rerate a new vessel, and ultimately had to undertake the process ourselves to obtain approvals. But this was for a project within China for a facility that had existing ASME VIII vessels, some of which required replacement to suit new operating conditions (and some that were beyond refurbishment).
You probably would not have a problem in obtaining an ASME VIII vessel from China, but PED compliance may be another story. To avoid headaches you must ensure that your manufacturer has specific experience with the PED, otherwise it may be cheaper overall to have your vessel built in the UK. This is just my impression, but at the time I had not come across the PED and so am not aware of Chinese experience in this area.
Regards,
John