Can you please clarify what you mean by the word "use"?

Good question

I have an old vessel that i'm trying to determine which exact code it used. It I have the U-1 form but much of it is faded away. I do have the serial number but unfortunately my state doesn't have a record of it probably due to its age.

Also, the vendor that fabricated it went out of business eons ago.

Now here i am trying to determine which code it used so i can run some calculations on it.

Knowing how API works today, if the vessel was originally manufactured for use in a petroleum or chemical facility (predominantly in the US, back then) it was to the API standard. This is because API tends to "improve" upon the usual standards by asking for extra "beefiness" and closer tolerances in their equipment.

Converting energy to motion for more than half a century

"Old"??

You're trying to use a vessel which is 80 years old???

Have you heard of corrosion and fatigue?

The only calculations should be how much it is worth in scrap metal. IMHO.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Since you have the Manufacturer's Data Report, if it's an API-ASME vessel the form would say "Appendix H" at the top. If it's an ASME vessel the form would say "Form U-1". Also if it's an ASME vessel it will have a "U" stamp on the nameplate, but if it's an API-ASME vessel the nameplate will have the API-ASME stamp (A, P, and I letters in the center with the A, S, M, and E letters around the perimeter) like the one seen in this previous thread:

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=408556

The main difference between the two codes is that ASME at the time used a design margin of 5:1 against the material tensile strength, whereas API-ASME used a 4:1 design margin (Generally API codes call for more robust designs, but apparently things were different in the 1930s-1950s).

I don't agree with the statement above that the equipment should be replaced just because it's old. Many services are non-cyclic, non-corrosive, and non-erosive. If the equipment has survived for 80 years there's a good chance that it's a proven, fit-for-purpose design.


-Christine

The point though is that how does anyone j=know after 80 years what the Pressure vessel was used for.

No mention of any inspections or pressure or usage so we're in the dark here, but an 80 year old pressure vessel with documentation so old it can't be read and this sounds like a good idea? No mention of a name plate either. That's my opinion, others are free to have a different one, but without any details we're not going to be able to say really.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

What does the stamp on the nameplate look like?

Since you have both Codes, you will see that in the API-ASME 1943 Edition, in Appendix H, there is no U-1 form, but rather Form No. 1. If you are looking at a U-1 Form, then you are with ASME Section VIII 1943.

I don't agree with scrapping equipment just because it is old.
Partial documents and selective NDT is enough to get many old vessels back into operation.

The API-ASME Code was first published in 1934 and discontinued in 1956. If you want more information about the development of the API-ASME Code you can find a discussion of it in the Foreward of the 10th edition API 510 (this info has since been removed from API 510).


-Christine

For me "old" in P V years is 40 to 50 yrs.

80 is positively ancient.

Still don't know if it has a legible nameplate yet or anything about its history or operation.

Are you going to try and get it to 100? You can take life extension a bit too far...

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

PV 10, 20 or 80 years old without any valid documentation is scrap.

Regards

The forth railway bridge is 130 years old and is going strong.
If this vessel is in good visual nick then NDT it's welds, pressure test etc and get it back into service.
The documentation which exists demonstrates that this vessel was fabricated to code. If the vessel goes through all the post fabrication testing of a modern vessel and passes, demonstrating that the vessel is structurally sound, than I don't see the point in scrapping it.
The service type of the vessel will also be a consideration.

Does anyone think that this PV can be put in service now without any more information than the one mentioned by (OP)?
If someone says YES then you need a lawyer.

Regards

@Christine74

Thank you!

Regarding the users who expressed safety concerns with this vessel first it is indeed not in service. Second, UT readings showed there has been virtually very little metal loss over the last 80 years.

With that being said, what's the concern with bringing back into service?

r6155: I think no one will say yes, but that also wasn’t the answer from for example Christine. There’s more to it than the simple replies you provide. Read the other replies again.

Huub
- You never get what you expect, you only get what you inspect.

@ Rubje's (Chemical)
You must contact a pressure vessel engineering to prepare a complete Inspection Plan.

Regards

Great to see r6155 coming around.
If the inspections and tests of a comprehensive inspection plan are completed satisfactory, then there is no need for a lawyer.
I have certified a 50 year old vessel which had been sitting around for 30 years, with no documentation or code name plate. The only information was the name of the original fabricator and old operating procedures.
The only concern I would have with an 80 year old vessel, would be the weld quality provided by the 80 year old welding technology. Can this concern be addressed with an inspection plan?

The key to this vessel being put back in service, is what the service cnditions are. Even if the material is fully killed carbon steel, you should excpect it to be brittle at 32 F and below including the weld metal. If semikilled expect the base material to be brittle at room temp, Even if it passed X-ray back then, do not expect it to do so now when/if you re RT.

I suggest including in the inspection plan a pressure test with acoustic emission examination.

Regards