A pressure equipment is delivered twice.
Once in steel, once on paper. The second delivery decides whether you start up on schedule — and it is the one most projects underestimate.
The equipment arrives on site. Dimensions check out. The welds look clean. Then commissioning stops — because the inspection dossier has no material certificate matching two of the nozzles, and the welding procedure qualification on file does not cover the wall thickness that was actually welded.
Nothing is wrong with the steel. Everything is wrong with the file.
For pressure equipment, compliance is not only about the physical product. The required technical documentation, inspections and conformity assessment are part of demonstrating that the equipment meets the applicable requirements.
Where these projects actually go wrong
Five recurring failure points. None of them are exotic, and all of them are easier to control before fabrication starts.
Traceability breaks at the small parts
Plates and heads are usually well controlled. Nozzles, flanges, reinforcement pads and smaller components are where traceability can quietly disappear.
Material certificates have to be connected to the actual components and their identification records. The required inspection documentation depends on the applicable material, PED and project requirements.
When a substitution happens on the shop floor and the record is not updated, the gap may only become visible during final document review — the worst possible moment to discover it.
The welding qualification chain does not cover the real work
A WPS has to be supported by a qualified welding procedure covering the actual variables and ranges of the work being performed.
Thickness, material group, diameter, welding position, process and other relevant variables can affect the applicable qualification range.
Welder qualifications under EN ISO 9606-1 are also subject to defined validity and continuity conditions.
For manufacturers operating under a structured welding quality system, responsibilities for welding coordination, qualification and production control are defined rather than left to individual workshop decisions.
The problem is not usually that someone cannot weld the joint.
The problem is discovering too late that the documented qualification does not cover the joint that was actually welded.
NDT is ordered as a percentage instead of a plan
“10% radiography” is not a complete inspection strategy.
Which joints? At which stage? Using which method? Against which acceptance criteria? By personnel qualified for the relevant examination method?
These questions belong in the Inspection and Test Plan before fabrication starts.
Adding NDT after heat treatment can be expensive. Adding it after insulation or delivery may be impractical or impossible.
The inspection sequence therefore matters just as much as the inspection percentage.
Notified Body hold points are discovered, not scheduled
The conformity assessment procedure selected for the equipment determines the involvement required from the Notified Body.
Hold points, witness points and document reviews therefore need to be integrated into the manufacturing schedule.
A project that treats third-party inspection as something that happens at the end can discover that the equipment is ready before the inspection process is.
That is not a technical failure.
It is a planning failure.
Nobody owns the dossier
This is the failure that multiplies the other four.
When plates are supplied by one company, forming is performed by another, welding by a third and machining by a fourth, each party may hold only a fragment of the manufacturing record.
The buyer can then receive several partial files and a coordination problem.
Responsibility for a complete technical and manufacturing dossier cannot be distributed across a supply chain simply by assuming that every participant will provide the right information at the right time.
A weld that fails inspection costs a repair. A documentation gap discovered at the end can cost weeks.
The dossier is built during fabrication, not after it
A pressure equipment manufacturing dossier may include, depending on the applicable requirements and project scope:
- Design calculations and as-built drawings
- Material certificates linked to component identification and traceability records
- Weld maps and welding records
- WPS and supporting WPQR documentation
- Welder and operator qualification records
- NDT procedures and reports
- NDT personnel qualification records where applicable
- Heat treatment records
- Pressure test records
- Dimensional and visual inspection reports
- Applicable conformity assessment documentation
- Declaration of Conformity and instructions for use
Assembled at the end of a project, that list becomes archaeology: chasing a subcontractor for a certificate issued weeks earlier, trying to identify which material was used for a particular nozzle, or reconstructing which inspection report belongs to which weld.
Assembled in parallel — with each document produced, checked and linked to the operation that generates it — it becomes the documented history of a controlled manufacturing process.
The difference between the two approaches can be measured in time, coordination effort and project risk.
How we handle it
MAXIMUS FAB takes responsibility for the wider execution process, and the file is part of that execution.
The Inspection and Test Plan comes first.
Hold, witness and review points, acceptance criteria and the required inspection scope are defined before manufacturing starts, with the required third-party involvement incorporated into the project schedule.
One point of responsibility.
However many workshops or suppliers are involved, the client has one contact, one coordinated schedule and one controlled documentation flow.
Requirements are translated into specific, auditable obligations for each participant rather than left as a general expectation of quality.
Documentation moves in step with production.
Material certificates, weld records, NDT reports, heat treatment records and inspection documentation are collected and checked as the relevant manufacturing activities take place — not reconstructed afterwards.
Equipment and dossier should arrive together, complete and traceable.
That is what we mean when we say we do not sell welding — we sell industrial responsibility.
Seven questions to ask before you place the order
- Which PED category applies to this equipment, and which conformity assessment procedure follows from it?
- Which Notified Body is involved, and where are its hold and witness points in the manufacturing schedule?
- What welding quality requirements apply, and who is responsible for welding coordination?
- Do the available WPQRs actually cover the materials, thicknesses, processes and other relevant variables in this scope?
- What is the NDT scope, at what stage will it be performed, against which acceptance criteria and by appropriately qualified personnel?
- What material inspection documentation is required for each critical component?
- Who is responsible for assembling the complete dossier, and when will the client receive its structure and progress status?
Planning a pressure equipment project?
Send us the drawings and your current project assumptions.
We can discuss the applicable execution requirements, inspection scope and documentation structure before manufacturing starts.
