VE Stamp Questions....Answered!

[05sportsman]

I had a question by PM the other day as to weather or not a sticker would replace the VE stamp at hydro and this is to answer that, but I thought it would be beneficial for all to be able to read this.

Per CFR 49 2010:
§ 180.213 Requalification markings
(a) General. Each cylinder requalified in accordance with this subpart with acceptable results must be marked as specified in this section. Required specification markings may not be altered or removed.
(b) Placement of markings. Each cylinder must be plainly and permanently marked on the metal of the cylinder as permitted by the applicable specification. Unless authorized by the cylinder specification, marking on the cylinder sidewall is prohibited.
(1) Requalification and required specification markings must be legible so as to be readily visible at all times. Illegible specification markings may be remarked on the cylinder as provided by the original specification. Requalification markings may be placed on any portion of the upper end of the cylinder excluding the sidewall, as provided in this section.
(c) Requalification marking method. The depth of requalification markings may not be greater than specified in the applicable specification. The markings must be made by stamping, engraving, scribing or other method that produces a legible, durable mark.
(d) Requalification markings. Each cylinder that has successfully passed requalification must be marked with the RIN set in a square pattern, between the month and year of the requalification date. The first character of the RIN must appear in the upper left corner of the square pattern; the second in the upper right; the third in the lower right, and the fourth in the lower left. Example: A cylinder requalified in September 1998, and approved by a person who has been issued RIN “A123”, would be marked plainly and permanently into the metal of the cylinder in accordance with location requirements of the cylinder specification or on a metal plate permanently secured to the cylinder in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. An example of the markings prescribed in this paragraph (d) is as follows:

Where:
“9” is the month of requalification,
“A123” is the RIN,
“98” is the year of requalification, and
“X” represents the symbols described in paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(7) of this section.

(e) Size of markings. The size of the markings must be at least 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) high, except RIN characters must be at least 3.18 mm (1/8 in.) high.
(f) Marking illustrations. Examples of required requalification markings for DOT specification and special permit cylinders are illustrated as follows:
(3) For designation of special filling limits up to 10% in excess of the marked service pressure for cylinders conforming to §173.302a(b) of this subchapter, the marking is as illustrated in paragraph (d) of this section, except that the “X” is replaced with a plus sign “+”.
(9) For designation of the eddy current examination combined with the visual inspection, the marking is as illustrated in the paragraph (d) of this section, except the "X" is replaced with the letters "VE".

If anyone has any other questions let me know, I will try to keep up with this thread. Thanks

 

[05sportsman]

This should clear up another concern I have read on here about can a 6061 alloy tank be stamped VE. Per DOT it can as long as it has had the correct machine perform the EC test it can be stamped.

PHMSA Response Letter

Jun 27, 2007



Ms. Amy Morgan Bruecks Reference No. 07-0117
President
City Carbonic Sales & Service, Inc.
406 S.W. 4 St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73109

Dear Ms. Bruecks:

This is in further reference to my May 17 response (ref. no. 07-0082) to your letter requesting clarification of the requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to cylinders manufactured of 6351-T6 aluminum alloy and used in self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA), self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), or oxygen service. Specifically, you ask whether only these specific cylinders may be eddy current tested and marked with the VE marking as required by § 180.209 and 180.213, respectively.

As I stated, the answer is no. Any aluminum alloy cylinder may be eddy current tested and marked with the VE marking regardless of whether the test is required for the particular cylinder. For aluminum cylinders made of other than alloy 6351-T6 for which the eddy current test and marking are not required, performance of this additional test exceeds the HMR requirements and is acceptable.

I hope this additional information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,



Hattie L. Mitchell
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards

180.209, 180.213

 

[Scared Silly]

Good info that I would like you to add to my sticky post on 6351 cylinders:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ta...66-my-cylinder-made-bad-alloy-aka-al6351.html


I partially mentioned the "VE" stamping in my post with the intent to add more. Perhaps the mods will combine them for you.

 

[oxyhacker]

This issue has been discussed here several times in the past, but since it has come up again it is probably worth adding that while the 6061 tanks do not have to be eddy current tested at hydro time, if one chooses to have a 6061 tank EC tested as part of requalification and it fails, the tank is condemned even though the EC inspection was optional and voluntary. As a result, many 6061 tank owners will probably decide to forgo the test on the grounds that it just exposes the tank to an unnecessary risk of condemnation, while others feel the risk is a cheap price to pay for enhanced safety.

This should clear up another concern I have read on here about can a 6061 alloy tank be stamped VE. Per DOT it can as long as it has had the correct machine perform the EC test it can be stamped.

[B

 

[05sportsman]

This issue has been discussed here several times in the past, but since it has come up again it is probably worth adding that while the 6061 tanks do not have to be eddy current tested at hydro time, if one chooses to have a 6061 tank EC tested as part of requalification and it fails, the tank is condemned even though the EC inspection was optional and voluntary. As a result, many 6061 tank owners will probably decide to forgo the test on the grounds that it just exposes the tank to an unnecessary risk of condemnation, while others feel the risk is a cheap price to pay for enhanced safety.

True, but lots of shops around here put them through the Eddy Current test as part of the VIP. I haven't had any of my shops ask for a 6061 tank EC at the hydro but the time could come or might not. Either way I have the Visual Plus 3 so I am able to do both.

 

[05sportsman]

Bump to the top!!

 

[Cylinder Tester]

Might be worth mentioning that just because your Vis + III shows a crack in 6061 you don't have to condemn the cylinder if you can't verify the crack visually.

 

[Hallmac]

Might be worth mentioning that just because your Vis + III shows a crack in 6061 you don't have to condemn the cylinder if you can't verify the crack visually.

In other words, you make the assumption your Visual Eddie electronic current tester is inaccurate, and simply ignore it. Thus, making it voodoo and just a money maker.

If you don't trust it, don't believe in it, and it is not required, would that not just fall into the ripping people off category if you charge for it?

I know in the beginning the VEIII gave Luxfer a rash of calls on 6061 cylinders reporting cracks that were not visual and that were not picked up by the VE and Version 2.
While the science behind the electronic current inspection is sound, is the readily available equipment accurate enough or reliable?

I still use the original version, and over the years have become comfortable with it's results. So much that I pulled three cylinders made in 2003 from my collection that clearly show repeatable and continuous voids on the VE, yet are not visible.

I have 150 from the same series and none of the others show the same results. Are there unseen cracks or just micro-anomalies, only destructive testing could tell for sure.
I removed them from service. 300 bucks out of my pocket for cylinders I am sure have not seen 60 dives. Would others do the same, or only do it for customers that lead to a sale and not a warranty issue?

Just posting my thoughts after reading along.

 

[Cylinder Tester]

Hallmac,

I hear your argument and don't totally disagree with you. The point was made that if you have a VE done on 6061 and it indicates a void that fits the VE program's parameters for a sustained load crack, then the cylinder has to be condemned. I'm just pointing out that DOT has recently reconfirmed that the criteria is a combination of both eddy current test and accompanying visual, not necessarily one or the other specifically.

I'm no high paid metalurgist, just a guy with a lot of eddy currents and visuals under my belt and I would contend that there may be other anomolies, such as incomplete threads, tap marks, etc that could show up as cracks in 6061. And I would suggest the programing doesn't know the difference. As we all know, the whole purpose of the VE is additional testing to indentify dangerous and potentially catastrophic Sustained Load Cracks identified specifically to 6351.

By the way, has anyone every told you that you look alot like Bruce Willis?