{"id":2763,"date":"2026-09-19T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-19T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yiyizk.com\/?p=2763"},"modified":"2026-09-18T02:25:22","modified_gmt":"2026-09-18T02:25:22","slug":"mixing-tank-fat-checklist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yiyizk.com\/es\/blog\/mixing-tank-fat-checklist\/","title":{"rendered":"Lista de verificaci\u00f3n FAT del tanque de mezcla: Pruebas, documentos y criterios de aceptaci\u00f3n"},"content":{"rendered":"

A mixing tank FAT checklist<\/strong> should answer a narrow question before shipment: does the built vessel and its agreed test assembly conform to the approved purchase specification, and what evidence supports that decision? A generic factory acceptance test template rarely covers the details that matter to an agitated tank\u2014wetted materials, nozzle position, drainability, agitator direction, seals, controls, and cleaning access. The buyer should agree on test conditions and acceptance limits before the visit, then record measured results, deviations, responsibilities, and release status. This guide is a practical starting point for a project-specific protocol; it does not replace the engineering design, applicable codes, or the plant’s safety procedures.<\/p>\n

Agree on the FAT boundary before fabrication finishes<\/h2>\n

Factory acceptance testing happens at the manufacturer’s site before delivery. It can verify a vessel and selected functions, but it cannot prove how the complete system will behave after installation with the plant’s piping, utilities, controls, raw materials, and operators. The protocol should therefore list what is assembled and available at the factory, what will be simulated, what is excluded, and what moves to site acceptance testing (SAT). De Dietrich’s process-equipment guidance makes the same distinction: a FAT is tailored to the equipment and agreed requirements rather than a universal set of tests. Review its FAT overview<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Freeze the revision-controlled inputs first: purchase order and data sheet, general arrangement, nozzle schedule, P&ID if supplied, material list, motor and gearbox information, control description, inspection and test plan, and approved deviations. Name the people who may witness tests and who may accept a nonconformance. If a jacket, vacuum system, pressure boundary, hygienic finish, load cells, or hazardous-area electrical equipment is in scope, the agreed protocol must state its separate verification method. Do not infer those features from a photograph or from a standard tank description.<\/p>\n

Use a traceable pass\/fail record, not a tick-box only<\/h2>\n

Every line in the FAT record should identify the requirement, the applicable document revision, inspection or test method, calibrated instrument if one is used, planned condition, acceptance criterion, observed result, witness, date, and disposition. A box marked \u201cpass\u201d without a measured value or visible evidence may be impossible to audit later. For dimensional checks, record the actual dimension or a marked drawing; for a functional check, record the setup, speed or setpoint, duration, and behavior observed. Where a requirement is not testable at the factory, mark it \u201cdeferred to SAT\u201d with an owner and agreed site method\u2014not \u201cpassed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Calibrated instruments need suitable range and uncertainty for the particular acceptance limit. A certificate is useful only when the instrument and measurement are fit for purpose; NIST’s metrological-traceability policy<\/a> explicitly distinguishes traceability from fitness for a particular measurement. Identify the instrument serial number, calibration status, and relevant test reading in the FAT pack. Do not demand a generic tolerance that was never specified or claim NIST certification of the finished tank.<\/p>\n

Mixing tank FAT checklist: the minimum decision table<\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Check area<\/th>\nEvidence to record<\/th>\nAcceptance question<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Identity and scope<\/td>\nTank tag, serial number, drawing revisions, as-built list<\/td>\nIs this the ordered configuration?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wetted materials<\/td>\nMaterial certificates and component-to-drawing traceability<\/td>\nDo shell, nozzles, shaft, seals, and gaskets meet the agreed bill of materials?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Geometry and connections<\/td>\nMeasured critical dimensions and marked nozzle schedule<\/td>\nWill the tank connect and fit as designed?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fabrication and finish<\/td>\nVisual inspection, agreed weld\/finish records, defect disposition<\/td>\nAre specified workmanship and product-contact surfaces acceptable?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Agitator drive<\/td>\nRotation, speed range, current, abnormal noise or vibration observations<\/td>\nDoes the supplied assembly operate safely under the agreed test condition?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Containment<\/td>\nApproved leak\/pressure\/vacuum test record where applicable<\/td>\nWas the correct boundary tested without exceeding design limits?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Controls and safeguards<\/td>\nPoint checks, permissive and alarm results, simulated faults<\/td>\nDoes the supplied control scope respond as specified?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Release package<\/td>\nSigned protocol, deviation log, manuals, certificates, punch list<\/td>\nAre open items controlled before shipment?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

The criterion column must be populated with project-specific values or drawings before test day. This table is a structure for decisions, not a declaration that any particular product has passed these checks.<\/p>\n

Inspect identity, construction, and the product-contact boundary<\/h2>\n

Walk the actual tank against the approved general arrangement. Confirm working and overall dimensions, support footprint, lifting or handling features, nozzle count and orientation, manway swing clearance, drain outlet position, jacket connections if present, and installation access. A tank can have the right total capacity yet still be unusable because the outlet conflicts with the plant floor or a maintenance envelope was omitted. Photograph each side with a view that identifies nozzle positions. The mixing tank nozzle-layout guide<\/a> explains why the arrangement should be fixed early; the FAT checks that the manufactured assembly matches it.<\/p>\n

\"Inspector
Illustrative inspection of a YIYI mixing tank configuration, based on an actual product image. The approved drawing\u2014not this image\u2014defines acceptance.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For wetted parts, compare the specified grades and finishes with traceable material and manufacturing records. Do not assume that a stainless shell proves the grade of the shaft, impeller, nozzles, valve internals, or gaskets. Inspect visible welds and product-contact surfaces against the agreed workmanship requirements, including accessible crevices, discoloration, incomplete polishing, and weld repairs. The buyer’s prior decisions about hygienic surface finish<\/a> and drainability<\/a> are separate specifications; the FAT records evidence of compliance with them. If a test such as roughness measurement, dye penetrant inspection, or passivation evidence was not purchased, do not quietly record it as complete.<\/p>\n

Check the agitator under a defined and safe test load<\/h2>\n

Before energizing, verify guarding, coupling alignment, impeller clearance, correct drive mounting, lubricant condition if relevant, electrical supply match, and an approved procedure for preventing unexpected startup. Observe direction of rotation and confirm it matches the impeller design and drawing. Record a speed check at agreed setpoints, motor current, bearing or gearbox behavior, seal condition, and abnormal noise or vibration. A brief dry run may be inappropriate for certain mechanical seals or equipment. A water run may be appropriate for some configurations, but it cannot establish mixing performance in a viscous or shear-sensitive production fluid. State the test medium, liquid level, temperature, duration, and any limitations in the record.<\/p>\n

Do not prescribe a universal vibration number or motor-current limit. Limits must come from the drive supplier, design basis, and project specification. Similarly, a successful rotation check does not prove batch mixing time, homogeneity, solids suspension, or heat-transfer performance at scale. Those claims require an agreed process test or a later site trial with representative material. The UK Health and Safety Executive’s work-equipment maintenance guidance<\/a> explains the need for safe isolation, preventing accidental reconnection, and guarding during maintenance. The responsible site and manufacturer must apply the rules relevant to their own jurisdiction and work.<\/p>\n

\"Technician
Reference-based factory test scene. Test conditions and results must be recorded for the actual ordered equipment.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Leak, pressure, jacket, and vacuum tests need separate boundaries<\/h2>\n

Define precisely which volume is being tested: product shell, heating or cooling jacket, seal system, transfer piping, or another assembly. They may have different design limits and different allowable media. Confirm the approved test method, pressure or vacuum, hold time, acceptance criterion, isolation arrangement, and instrument range from the vessel design documents. A jacket test does not prove that the product shell is leak-tight, and a shell test does not prove the jacket. Visual inspection should cover accessible welds, flanges, nozzles, seals, and drain points before and after the test as specified. A pressure test must not be improvised to satisfy a generic blog checklist.<\/p>\n

If the tank is intended only for atmospheric service, do not apply pressure or vacuum conditions that have not been designed and approved. If a vacuum duty is specified, check the external-pressure basis separately from positive pressure. Cleaning-fluid containment, seal flushes, and condensation management can also require their own tests. The FAT report should say what passed, what was deferred, and what changed after any repair. A process-equipment FAT may include vessel review, motor data, pressure and vacuum testing, functional tests, deviations, and a punch list\u2014but example conditions from another project are not universal limits for this mixing tank.<\/p>\n

Challenge controls, interlocks, and utility interfaces<\/h2>\n

For a supplied control panel, perform an I\/O walkdown against the approved drawings. Confirm sensor identification, displayed engineering units, alarm states, emergency-stop behavior, motor start permissives, variable-speed commands where supplied, and the intended fail state of valves or drives. Use controlled simulations for sensor failure or high\/low signals, with the vessel kept inside its design limits. Record the simulated input and the actual response. When a customer-owned PLC, nitrogen system, heating utility, or downstream pump is not present, document the interface test that can be completed at the factory and schedule integrated verification at SAT.<\/p>\n

The following educational video concerns factory acceptance testing of industrial control systems. It is included for the controls part of a FAT, not as a demonstration of this YIYI tank or a substitute for its mechanical checks.<\/p>\n