Air Receiver Test in India

Sounds good to me. As far as the corrosion allowance, it presumably was specified at time of purchase. Should be on the nameplate, and for sure on the fab drawing/spec.

You ask: "What should be corrosion allowance for 10mmthick shell wall as to reduce the autorized pressure"

If the receiver was built to ASME VIII standards, the vessel is deemed safe for the design pressure AFTER THE WALL HAS BEEN CORRODED THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED BY THE PURCHASER.

Common corrosion allowances for ASME-VIII Air Receivers are 0.065 and 0.125 inches.

Air recievers undergo accelerated corrosion on the bottom parts. Oxygen bearing water has a tendency to collect there.

It is wise to consider an automatic device to discharge this water and test THE BOTTOM of these recievers more frequently than other pressure vessels.

My opinion only

You will hear a deafening boom when the corrosion allowance has been exceeded.

A boom maybe, in the extreme yes, but what is the likely failure outcome of progressive corrosion in between proof testing dates (or not tested).

Is it a hole or a split, becoming obvious by the sound of leaking, or failure to reach working pressure, or something more drastic?

I have no personal knowledge of exploding air receivers.

Just wondered.

This thread doesn't make sense. These are the sorts of questions that need to be addressed to the Engineer/Surveyor from the company that supplies burst indemnity insurance cover for the vessel. The corrosion allowance will be built into the design calculations, a copy of which will be held by that company. The frequency of the test and the maximum working pressure are determined by that individual on visual and thickness testing of the vessel at the inspection intervals that the company requires. Its safe working pressure appears on the inspection report document, which is filed in the facility's General Register.

To vary these arrangements by inviting the contribution of anonymous contributors to an international Engineering discussion forum is crass, quite frankly.

Might add irresponsible and maybe even unethical!

But, hey, anything to save a buck rupee.

Engineer/Surveyor from the company that supplies burst indemnity insurance cover for the vessel are not from heaven with perfect knowledge. Even test reports/certificates some time questioned and challanged. Since it was noticed that there are many conflict on corrosin allowance and periodic testing of pressure vessel in difrent standards. Anyway thanks for the comments and instant solution for the query

Opinions on the quality of thse individuals' knowledge are completely irrelevant! These individuals are professionally liable to their underwriters. To disregard their instructions exposes one to the withdrawal of burst indemnity insurance cover and, in turn, to personal and professional liability in the event of the vessel rupturing. Should this disregard be taking place, please ensure all other CR4 readers and all innocent bystanders are a safe distance away from the vessel before exceeding its maximum authorised working pressure. That way, only one individual gets sued/injured/scalded/maimed/killed.

Engineer/Surveyor from the company that supplies burst indemnity insurance cover for the vessel are not from heaven with perfect knowledge.

No, but they are paid to take the risk, not you or I (if I read this CR4 thread correctly). Standards vary but the equipment should be certified and inspected to the relevant local standards applicable to your application and signed off by others (especially if a variation is requested).