×
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

U Stamp on PED Vessels

U Stamp on PED Vessels

U Stamp on PED Vessels

(OP)
For pressure vessels that are CE marked but designed, fabricated, and tested to ASME VIII Div 1, with Notified Body involvement to extent required by PED, is there any reason to have vessels U Stamped as well? I think that where PED conformance is mandated then CE Marking confirms this and U Stamp is superfluous - any comments?

RE: U Stamp on PED Vessels

If a pressure vessel is placed on the market and put into service in "Europe", only the CE Mark has any legal significance.  Unless the customer, for some reason, has specified the U Stamp as a requirement of your contract; maybe he plans to re-use the vessel elsewhere at some future date?

RE: U Stamp on PED Vessels

(OP)
No, I have the feeling that ASME U Stamp requirement was there because that was the usual means to confirm compliance with the code requirements. With CE marking for PED related vessels, U Stamp does not seem to add anything (assuming vessel is not going to be reused).

I would be interested to know whether deleting U stamp requirement would actually save me any money though.

RE: U Stamp on PED Vessels

Deleting the U stamp requirement could save you money depending upon the module used. If a type module was used than the notified body costs should be spread over a number of products.

We have supplied vessels with U stamps and PED compliance even though the final end user was in Australia!!! It was because half the spec team were American and the other half were French, so we got a cover-it-all specification.

I presume that they had to do some work at their end to get it approved in Australia, but that wasn't my problem.

RE: U Stamp on PED Vessels

(OP)
I have registered vessels in Australia with ASME/NB certification, but not with PED compliance. With Mutual Recognition Agreements in place though, I guess it would not be a problem. Vessels for Australia with both ASME and PED compliance seems a bit weird though.

I'm having to come to terms with PED requirements for latest project and feel that retaining ASME U stamp is over-specifying (PED is mandatory in this case). On an almost related issue, I was interested in the forum discussion last year on the differing approach by NBs in relation to hydrotest pressure (Code or PED) and am waiting with bated breath to see what develops as we get further down the path.

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