Inspection Of Vendor Supplied ASME Code Vessels

[beiringf]

I was recently given the task of moving all our ASME Code vessel work to outside suppliers. This has enabled us to save a lot of money as ASME code work was a small part of our business. However, now we are starting to receive numerous ASME vessels into one of our facilities and there is no QC system set up for inspection. Does anyone have any examples of reliable and accurate ASME checklists that they use to determine if a vessel is accebtable or needs to be rejected. Not being very familiar with the things I should be looking for has made this exercise of making a company QC checklist very difficult. And since our old QC manger has left, it makes it even more difficult to tap the resources I need to make a quality QC form everyone can follow when a vessel comes in the door.

 

[Vinch]

The vendor is responsible of the quality of its products. He should provide you with a certificate, data report, stamping ect., that assure you that all the rules were followed. So I think you only need to do a general visual inspection upon arrival of vessels and inspect for damage that could have occurred during transportation. The inspector should be knowledgeable of ASME vessels.

If you want to make sure all the rules are followed you should inspect at the vendor site throughout the fabrication process.

 

[beiringf]

The problem was that the vendors AI inspected the vessel and signed off on it. When it arrived in our facility we received it without really looking at certain catch points. Once it was received and we were about to install the solimar pads, we realized there were a few issues, which turned into more. We had our AI come in and he agreed with our findings, but now we already had the vessel and dealing with getting it returned has been a nightmare. What I am trying to develope is a checklist that they can run over before accepting the vessels, whether they have already been inspected by the vendors AI and QC or not. What I need to figure out is a good list of things to look for that should sound alarm bells when our guys are looking the vessels over. Do most companies do this, or do they just receive the vessels in with the understanding they are fine if passed by another AI. Thank you for your response by the way, it was very appreciated.

 

[qcrobert]

The ASME certificate holder that fabricated the PV should be presenting you with a Traveler that states certificate, data report, stamping, MTRs, weld map, AFC dwgs, welding procedures, etc..

Your original QC Manual should state all visual and NDE requirements.

Are the AFC dwgs not being followed?

As the "middle man" of receiving these pressure vessels, you should be periodically be checking the subcontractor's work and eventually doing a final inspection/acceptance at their fab shop.

Back to the checklist, simply inspect for weld quality as per acceptance criteria outlined in Section VIII and perform dimensional verification from AFC dwgs.

 

[vesselfab]

Need an ispector at the vendors site.

Need a better approval process for drawings.

The vendor's AI does generally look at every detail. He survails the shop, reviews WPS & PQR, welder continuity, reviews calcs (not check), review drawings, visually examines welds, review x-rays and NDE reports, revies PWHT report & chart, witnesses hydro and signs data report.

He does not do a thorough inspection.

 

[beiringf]

Thanks everyone for your comments. You all taught me something new and confirmed a few points I was already leaning towards.

 

[stanweld]

Dimensional inspections of vessels after receiving are a little late. The AI does not normally inspect for mis-oriented nozzzles or mis-located internal supports. Big costs result to relocate piping or internal supports. You do have some recourse when the vessel is not made to the approved drawings.

If you have specification requirements above Code, how will you know that they will be followed without vendor surveillance? The AI will not inspect to assure compliance therewith.

We once had a vessel that hasd been accepted by the AI (State of California) and the City inspector assigned to inspect by the client (City of Los Angeles). When I walked in the shop, I immediately observed a stainless steel nozzle with the longitudinal seam welded with carbon steel filler metal. Needless to say, I rejected the vessel on the spot. When the shop supervision told me that it was acceptable, I asked them to provide their qualified WPS for the weld. They did not have one. I further pointed to our contract specification's requirement that the filler metal essentially match the chemistry of the base metal. They complied with the requirement to correct that nonconformance and all other nonconformances that were subsequently found on closer inspection.

 

[beiringf]

Just an update: We ended up rejecting the vessel and shipped it back to the vendor. We ended up having two issues with the vessel, and hence the reasons we sent it back.
1.) One of the holes drilled in the cone of the vessel for solimar pads, was drilled thru the weld seam. not sure why did this, even common sense says not do this. The vendor admitted the mistake and we are happy with their agreement on this and the steps they have taken to make sure this wont happen again. We could not get the solimar pads to seal and were not going to make the corrections ourselves (i.e. grinding the welds, etc., etc.)
2.) There was a non-code compliant head-to-shell misalignment in two places. The misalignment at one location was just over 1/8". There also appreared to be poor alignment at another location.

Thanks for everyones help on this, your replys were very helpful.