Are Calculations for Section VIII Considered "Design" for Insurance? 5

[PipingEquipment]

There has been a bit of conversation around the office as to whether the BPVC calculations are actually 'design' or not, mainly for insurance reasons, what do you think?
It seems to me that since we are deciding the thickness and components that we are doing design work. I don't see it as any different than an engineering firm that sizes components, other than an engineering stamp (in fact I often do calculations for engineering firms for vessels). These firms may design a structural component, Section VIII design calcs involve engineering the saddles, base plate, bolt size ie structural components. It seems like the people up top don't want to consider it design work for financial reasons, however I don't see how this isn't design work but I'm curious how other people and companies classify and insure ASME Section VIII as design work or not?

 

[TGS4]

I have my opinion on this topic, but it's worth what you pay.

This is really an insurance question, that is best answered by your insurance broker or agent. The answer may actually depend on your specific jurisdiction.

 

[PipingEquipment]

It's kind of a moot point as we are getting the insurance anyways (for another design aspect, but this will cover the vessel aspect if there is a problem and it is deemed design by a court/insurance agent), my question was more for trying to resolve the issue in my own mind, so please offer your opinion if you would like.

 

[TomBarsh]

Structural engineers designing buildings, bridges, etc, generally have insurance to cover their design work. Their design work generally follows some Code or Standard, such as the AISC, ACI, etc. They apply the loads defined in standards such as ASCE 7, etc, or their jurisdiction's building codes.

Designers of pressure vessels also design according to a Code, the ASME B&PV Code, etc. They also apply the loads defined in standards such as ASCE 7, etc, or their jurisdiction's building codes.

I don't see any difference.

 

[SnTMan]

Design work? No, anybody can do it. Just get some software and start banging away....

Regards,

Mike

 

[PipingEquipment]

Can anybody just do it? Particularly in sectors where significant monetary loss and/or fatalities or serious injury could be the result of shoddy designing...
It's my understanding that in these cases, where a product has the potential to be dangerous, a PE must sign off on the design, or in the case of Section VIII vessels the Code must be followed then signed off by the engineering designer/manager (verifying the validity of the calcs) and usually also by the quality control manager, and then always signed off on by an Authorized Inspector. On top of that we have to, on an annual basis, do the calculations by hand to prove the software is functioning correctly, so while today most of it is plug and chug, an understanding of the principles and formulas, as well as the rules of the Code is imperative for a good vessel engineer.
Sure anybody can get on CAD or draw up something on paper, or use software to produce something, even at home with a 3D printer, this has probably never been easier, but the design I'm referring to is usually heavy industrial work that has the potential for catastrophic failure with severe consequences.
Can anybody do Section VIII design of vessels? I would say no... I don't think a high school drop out with no technical knowledge would be in a position to do these calculations, he may be able to input the values into software, but would not understand all the terminology and meaning of values that the computer outputs, would he be able to understand the Code and all of the rules, or do the calculations without the aid of the software? If no then I'd say this person should not be in this position. I am surprised that, and not entirely sure why, vessels in Division 1 don't need a PE to sign off on them (but this may be a discussion for another thread) and I'm unaware of any other engineered components that do not need a PE's signiture. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that anything designed that has the potential for great loss of life or money had to be signed off on by a PE (except for vessels).

I just had lunch with the president of a local engineering firm and brought up this issue, he seems to agree that this is certainly design work and admitted that his company can't/doesn't do design of vessels (I do the design for them most of the time), so it seems to me that most are in agreement that BPVC is indeed design work. Now whether an insurance firm would agree may be a different case, but from a realistic standpoint its design work.

 

[SnTMan]

PipingEquipment, I was (mostly) being facetious. I see too much "data entry clerk" type design these days, in my field and others. Put numbers in, get numbers out. Call it done. Don't know what the software is doing? No matter, it has to be right. Can't calculate P/A? Do an FEA. Don't know how to arrange views on a drawing? Let the software do it.

Sorry if I set you off

Regards,

Mike

 

[chicopee]

Well it is design work per code. It's no different than let's say a CE doing storm water drainage calculations per code or any other disciplines designing per code when it involves the safety of the public and of the environment.

 

[JStephen]

Unfortunately, SnTMan brings up a good point. I have seen vessel calcs where the printed calculations showed overstress conditions, but neither the person generating them or the person reviewing them knew the difference. Or where one aspect of the design is simply omitted (wind, seismic, liquid head, etc.)

 

[PipingEquipment]

I agree, Hopefully in this situation the AI caught it.. although I've seen AIs not even glance at the calculations when approving a vessel. And TBH this particular AI is very old and I don't think he has an engineering or science background so I doubt he would be able to readily spot problems if there were any. I think this is going to lead to problems and it may be the case in the future that there will be some requirements put in place in regards to level of education (engineering degree) or amount of industry experience to be able to do and sign off on calcs, or maybe even having a PE sign off on them, and am surprised that this isn't already the case.

 

[TGS4]

In my jurisdiction, the design of ASME Section VIII, Division 1 vessels is not considered engineering design, and therefore does not require the involvement of an engineer (let alone a Professional Engineer). However, Division 2 vessels require a Professional Engineer. I don't think that there is a difference, and yet, there's the bright line...

Some operating companies (users) require that a Professional Engineer certify the design, regardless of what the jurisdictional requirements are.

I think that the Foreword of Division 1 is pretty clear about this, mind you.

This Code contains mandatory requirements, specific prohibitions, and nonmandatory guidance for construction activities. The Code does not address all aspects of these activities and those aspects that are not specifically addressed should not be considered prohibited. The Code is not a handbook and cannot replace education, experience, and the use of engineering judgment. The phrase engineering judgment refers to technical judgments made by knowledgeable designers experienced in the application of the Code. Engineering judgments must be consistent with Code philosophy and such judgments must never be used to overrule mandatory requirements or specific prohibitions
of the Code.

The Committee recognizes that tools and techniques used for design and analysis change as technology progresses and expects engineers to use good judgment in the application of these tools. The designer is responsible for complying with Code rules and demonstrating compliance with Code equations when such equations are mandatory. The Code neither requires nor prohibits the use of computers
for the design or analysis of components constructed to the requirements of the Code. However, designers and engineers using computer programs for design or analysis are cautioned that they are responsible for all technical assumptions inherent in the programs they use and they are responsible for the application of these programs to their design.

 

[JStephen]

In many jurisdictions, design of shop-built pressure vessels will fall under an industrial/manufacturing exemption, just as the design of automobiles or gate valves would. That doesn't mean it's not engineering, just that it's not regulated under the engineering laws.

 

[TGS4]

My jurisdiction doesn't have an industrial exemption. :-(

 

[GenB]

Well. If you get paid (or not) to fab a vessel from design to completion you are responsible for any failure in design or workmanship,.
If you only got the job of designing you are responsible for the seeing work.
If you only fab, someone else design it you are for the fab only but do not forget that you must check the design before building... That's the ASME,s Code requirement.
So if you are responsible for any thing... Your insurance litigate and will pay. If you have a policy.. I hope you do... So in the end if you have a degree or not or you just have second grade edu..like me... And punch numbers in the computer you are liable. Oh! I love to play the lawyer, and I feel better when I'm right... Are you happy now. There is your answer. Genb

 

[GenB]

Well. If you get paid (or not) to fab a vessel from design to completion you are responsible for any failure in design or workmanship,.
If you only got the job of designing you are responsible for the seeing work.
If you only fab, someone else design it you are for the fab only but do not forget that you must check the design before building... That's the ASME,s Code requirement.
So if you are responsible for any thing... Your insurance litigate and will pay. If you have a policy.. I hope you do... So in the end if you have a degree or not or you just have second grade edu..
And punch numbers in the computer you are liable.genblr