Professional engineering stamp for generic design

[PetroBob]

I've been asked to stamp process documents (PFDs and P&IDs) for a generic plant design, ie several of them may be built at different locations in accordance with the PFDs and P&IDs I'm signing off. Perhaps this is more common in other engineering disciplines but this is the first time as a process engineer that I've been asked to sign off process engineering documents for a "catalogue design".

I want feedback from eng-tips members as to what is the legality of stamping a generic design (ie what is the guidance and requirements from the professional engineering organisations in this situation) and what extra checks and balances do you recommend compared with signing off a design which is only to be built in one specific location.

The design is in Canada but I'm interested in feedback from folks in USA as well as Canada in terms of general guidance and what's legally allowed/required by the various professional engineering organisations.

My initial thoughts are to add notes to the documents to clearly define the process parameters (fluid flow rates, temperatures, pressures, etc) which the design must comply with.

 

[SNORGY]

PetroBob:

Yeah, that and a whole bunch of other caveats...

A lot of clients want to go down that path. We are digging in and saying "no". What we *will* do is develop template drawings for standardized designs that do not receive professional endorsement until we know the ultimate end user, LSD location and site-specific title block information.

Even a simple thing like missing some tank farm flex hoses that, in a standardized design assuming only "X" mm settlement, are either not required or are of length "L" is an issue that is enough of a deterrent against carte blanche professional endorsement in the event the geotechnical conditions are different at the second of two sites.

We don't professionally endorse standardized designs. I personally never will, and I would advise anyone else against doing so, unless they are building self-contained process modules - and even then, many caveats apply.

Regards,

SNORGY.