At a glance
- A simple pressure vessel does not fall under the PED (Article 1(2)(c) of 2014/68/EU). A PED category for such a vessel is not a “stricter choice” but the wrong directive.
- The scope is cumulative: every condition of Article 1(1)(a) to (e) must hold. One deviation (stainless steel, another fluid, a single vessel to drawing) and you are back with the PED.
- There are no categories but four bands of PS·V: up to 50 bar·l sound engineering practice without CE (Article 4(2)), above that module B (Article 13(1)) followed by C1, C2 or C (Article 13(2)).
- On the reference date the list of harmonised standards contains no design standard. That makes the EU-type examination of the production type the rule (Article 13(1)(b)), not the exception.
Does your vessel fall under 2014/29/EU, and which route applies?
Ten questions plus two optional temperatures, all taken from Articles 1 and 13 of the directive. Scope is asked, not inferred: a one-off or stainless vessel is outside it, however small. Same rule engine as the Dutch site, 18 test cases against OJ L 96.
One directive, no category
Directive 2014/29/EU succeeds 2009/105/EC and the original 87/404/EEC: the directive for the compressor receiver, the brake-air reservoir and the buffer vessel on the nitrogen line. It exists alongside the PED because this kind of vessel is so simple and so numerous that a full conformity assessment per design would be out of proportion. The PED takes that over in Article 1(2)(c): what falls under 2014/29/EU does not fall under 2014/68/EU.
That has a consequence that is often missed: the free PED check cannot recognise such a vessel. The check asks pressure, volume, fluid and group; it does not ask whether the vessel is welded, of which steel, in which shape, or in series. An air receiver of 11 bar and 500 litres comes out as a category IV vessel under the PED — 5 500 bar·l sits above the 3 000 line in table 2 — while the same vessel at a series manufacturer working in non-alloy steel falls under 2014/29/EU, where it is settled in the 3 000 to 10 000 bar·l band with module C1. That is why the home page asks the question at such a result, and why the scope in the check above is a list of separate conditions with a tick per line: they are asked, not inferred.
The conditions of Article 1
| Point | Condition | Where it bites |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | welded; intended to contain air or nitrogen; internal gauge pressure greater than 0.5 bar; not intended to be exposed to flame | a seamless cylinder and a vessel for argon or CO₂ fall outside. “Exposed to flame” is not the same as heated: an electrically heated or steam-jacketed vessel is not fired and does not fall outside on that count |
| (b) | the parts and assemblies contributing to the strength of the vessel, of non-alloy quality steel, or of non-alloy aluminium or a non-age-hardening aluminium alloy | stainless steel falls outside. Mind the word “assemblies”: your welding consumable counts, and that is where the argument starts in practice |
| (c) | a cylinder of circular cross-section closed by outwardly dished and/or flat ends on the same axis of revolution, or by two dished ends on the same axis | rectangular tanks and special geometry fall outside. Connections, sockets and a manway on their own do not: SPVD guideline 2 assumes such a vessel has openings. Only when the shell is no longer a cylinder of circular cross-section does this condition fail |
| (d) | PS not exceeding 30 bar and PS·V not exceeding 10 000 bar·l | both limits at once; 30 bar × 500 l is 15 000 and falls outside |
| (e) | minimum working temperature not below −50 °C and maximum working temperature not above 300 °C for steel and 100 °C for aluminium | a brake-air reservoir on a vehicle for the far north needs the Tmin figure, not an assumption |
| (1), opening | manufactured in series | one vessel to drawing is not a series; then the PED applies, however simple the vessel |
| (2) | not for nuclear use; not specially designed for installation in or for the propulsion of ships or aircraft; no fire extinguishers | point (b) has two branches and the first is the one most often forgotten. A vessel specially designed to be installed on board falls outside this directive, even where it has nothing to do with propulsion |
Four bands, no table
Anyone who knows the PED looks here for a table and a category. There are none. The directive works with one figure, the product of PS and V in bar·litre, and splits it into four bands.
Up to and including 50 bar·l. The vessel must meet sound engineering practice in a Member State and carry the markings of Annex III point 1.2, but no CE marking (Article 4(2) and Article 6(2)). This is the mirror image of Article 4(3) of the PED; here too, no CE does not mean “nothing”.
Above 50 bar·l. First an EU-type examination (module B, Annex II point 1), then a production module per band (Article 13(2)): above 3 000 bar·l only C1 (conformity to type based on internal production control plus supervised product testing, point 2); between 200 and 3 000 bar·l C1 or C2 (supervised vessel checks at random intervals, point 3); between 50 and 200 bar·l C1 or C (internal production control, point 4 — where the body that carried out the type examination certifies the manufacturing and inspection file before production starts, but does not supervise the tests). Unlike the PED there is no quality-assurance route: no D, E or H. The manufacturer chooses between product supervision (C1), random checks (C2) and internal production control with a pre-certified file (C, only up to 200 bar·l).
Design type or production type
Article 13(1) draws a distinction that in practice sets the cost. If the vessel is manufactured in accordance with the harmonised standards of Article 12, the manufacturer chooses for the EU-type examination the design type (assessment of the technical documentation without access to a specimen) or the production type (assessment with a representative specimen). If the vessel is not, or not fully, built to those standards, the production type is mandatory. What that means on the reference date is in the next block.
Harmonised standards: there is no design standard
The list the Commission publishes under 2014/29/EU contains on 02-09-2026 four entries: EN ISO 9606-1:2017 (welder qualification, steels), EN 10207:2017 (steels for simple pressure vessels), EN ISO 15614-1:2004 with A1:2008 and A2:2012 (welding procedure qualification, steels and nickel) and EN ISO 15614-2:2005 with AC:2009 (welding procedure qualification, aluminium). Published in OJ C 326 of 14-9-2018.
What is not on it: EN 286-1, the product standard for the design, calculation and testing of these vessels. The citation from the days of 2009/105/EC was not carried over under the new directive, and a revision is under way at CEN. The consequence is that for the design there is no presumption of conformity (Article 12): with a material standard and two qualification standards you can show that the steel and the welds are right, but not that the vessel as a whole meets Annex I.
This is a snapshot. As soon as a revised EN 286-1 is cited, the weighing in this block changes; the check states the reference date under the result. How such a citation comes about, and why a published EN gives no presumption yet, is on Standards in development.
Markings, declaration and language
Every vessel above 50 bar·l carries the CE marking with the last two digits of the year it was affixed (Annex III point 1.1), followed by the identification number of the notified body involved in the production control phase (Article 16(3)). In addition the markings of Annex III point 1.2: at least PS, Tmax, Tmin, the capacity V, the name or mark and the address of the manufacturer, and the type and serial or batch number. Below 50 bar·l the markings remain, the CE marking falls away (Article 6(2)).
Every vessel above 50 bar·l comes with an EU declaration of conformity to the model of Annex IV: Article 6(2), second subparagraph requires it once the procedure of Article 13 has been completed, and Article 14 gives the model. Below that limit there is none. Instructions and safety information accompany every vessel, in a language determined by the Member State that users can easily understand (Article 6(7)). For the conformity assessment itself, Article 13(3) provides that the documents and correspondence are drawn up in an official language of the Member State of the notified body, or in a language accepted by that body.
The Netherlands: the Warenwetbesluit drukvaten van eenvoudige vorm 2016
In the Netherlands the directive is transposed by the Warenwetbesluit drukvaten van eenvoudige vorm 2016. For the manufacturer, the importer and the distributor the decree settles the language: instructions and safety information in Dutch (Article 3(2), Article 5(2) and Article 6(2) for the three roles), and the conformity assessment follows Article 13 of the directive (Article 9). The decree has no inspection before commissioning of its own and no periodic re-inspection. Article 16 is headed “Instructions for the use phase”: paragraph 1 requires the vessel to be accompanied by the instructions of Annex III point 2 of the directive, paragraphs 2 and 3 require good maintenance and use as intended. That is all it says.
And the Dutch inspection duty under the WBDA?
It does not apply, and the decree says so itself. Article 1(2) of the Warenwetbesluit drukapparatuur 2016 declares that decree inapplicable to pressure equipment and assemblies referred to in Article 1(2) of the directive — and point (c) there is precisely the simple pressure vessel covered by 2014/29/EU. No inspection before commissioning, no re-inspection, whatever the capacity. For air receivers up to and including 2 500 litres and a PS of at most 30 bar a second track points the same way: the Warenwetregeling drukapparatuur 2016 exempts them from both inspections anyway (Article 3(3)(c) and 3(4)).
Notified bodies
A notification under the PED is not a notification under 2014/29/EU. They are separate entries in NANDO, with their own modules, and the circle of bodies under this directive is considerably smaller than under the PED. It also changes: notifications are withdrawn and added without announcement.
That is why there is no list of names and no count here. What you do before placing the order: search NANDO under Directive 2014/29/EU, check whether the body you have in mind is listed there right now, and look at which modules (B, C1, C2) appear behind its name. A body that handles your PED work may carry out your EU-type examination under this directive only if it is separately notified for it.
The four guidelines
The Commission’s working group has adopted four guidelines under 2014/29/EU (version 1.0 of 17-10-2018). They are short and worth reading: a vessel with a slight contamination of the air (for instance oil mist from the compressor) stays within scope; the directive sets no requirement on ratios — not length to width, not branch to cylinder diameter, not the opening in a flat end to the cylinder diameter — and assumes such a vessel has connections and openings; the manufacturer designs for the known and expected conditions of use and records them in the instructions; and the minimum wall thickness of Annex I applies without corrosion allowance, which comes on top.
Where it goes wrong
| Assumption | What actually applies |
|---|---|
| “It is a simple vessel, so 2014/29/EU” | Simplicity is not a criterion. A single custom-built air receiver falls under the PED because it is not manufactured in series (Article 1(1), opening words). |
| “Stainless is better, so certainly allowed” | Point (b) lists only non-alloy quality steel and the named aluminium grades. Stainless steel brings the vessel under the PED. |
| “Below 50 bar·l nothing is needed” | No CE and no module, but sound engineering practice and the markings of Annex III point 1.2 (Article 4(2), Article 6(2)). |
| “EN 286-1 is the harmonised standard” | Not on the reference date. Without a design standard the EU-type examination of the production type is the rule (Article 13(1)(b)). |
| “Our PED body will do this as well” | Only if it is separately notified under 2014/29/EU, with the module you need. Check that in NANDO at the moment you place the order; notifications are withdrawn too. |
| “No inspection duty, because it is not PED” | True here, but not for that reason: the WBDA rules itself out in Article 1(2), and for air receivers up to 2 500 litres and 30 bar the WRDA exemption applies as well. For any other product, “not PED” on its own proves nothing. |
Frequently asked questions
Does a compressor receiver fall under the PED or under 2014/29/EU?
Under 2014/29/EU if every condition of Article 1(1) is met — welded, for air or nitrogen, not fired, of non-alloy quality steel or the named aluminium, cylindrical with dished or flat ends, PS not exceeding 30 bar, PS·V not exceeding 10 000 bar·l, within the temperature limits and manufactured in series — and none of the exclusions of Article 1(2) applies (nuclear use, propulsion of ships or aircraft, fire extinguishers). If one condition is missing, Directive 2014/68/EU applies, because Article 1(2)(c) excludes only what falls fully under 2014/29/EU.
Which module goes with which vessel?
Above 50 bar·l always an EU-type examination first (module B, Article 13(1)). Then Article 13(2) sets the production phase: above 3 000 bar·l module C1; between 200 and 3 000 bar·l C1 or C2 at the manufacturer’s choice; between 50 and 200 bar·l C1 or C, where under C the body only certifies the manufacturing and inspection file beforehand (Annex II point 4.2). Up to and including 50 bar·l there is no module and no CE marking, only sound engineering practice and the markings (Article 4(2)).
Why is EN 286-1 not on the list of harmonised standards?
The citation under the previous directive was not carried over under 2014/29/EU; on the reference date the list contains only EN 10207 and three welding standards. A revision of EN 286-1 is under way at CEN. As long as no design standard is cited, Article 12 gives no presumption of conformity for the design and the EU-type examination of the production type is the rule (Article 13(1)(b)). The standard remains usable as technical evidence.
Must a simple pressure vessel be inspected before commissioning in the Netherlands?
No. Article 1(2) of the Warenwetbesluit drukapparatuur 2016 declares that decree inapplicable to what Article 1(2) of the PED excludes, and point (c) there is the simple pressure vessel. So there is no inspection before commissioning and no re-inspection, whatever the capacity. For air receivers up to and including 2 500 litres and a PS of at most 30 bar the exemption in the Warenwetregeling drukapparatuur 2016 points the same way (Article 3(3)(c) and 3(4)). The Warenwetbesluit drukvaten van eenvoudige vorm 2016 has no inspection of its own: Article 16 asks for the instructions of Annex III point 2 and for good maintenance and use as intended.
Can my notified body under the PED also do the EU-type examination under 2014/29/EU?
Only if it is separately notified under Directive 2014/29/EU, with the module you need. Notifications are listed per directive in the NANDO database and change without announcement: a body that was listed last year may since have been withdrawn. Check it in NANDO at the moment you place the order, and allow for ending up with a body in another Member State.
Does it fall under the PED after all?
Then the category is in the free PED check and the full report delivers the substantiation, the module choice and the file overview for your equipment.
Run the free check or see the full report