Appreciation for the responses! I agree that one needs to be careful about not going with 316L due to the carbon content. I also looked up 316H but didn't see any advantage. I tried Section II, Part A but didn't see anything there. The only pattern I could see was that the row with the lower...
All,
I have an application where the design temperature is between 1100F and 1150F. In Section II, Part D, there are two rows dedicated to SA-312 TP316 "smls. & wld. pipe" (#32 an d#33) The first row has a creep temperature that begins at 1100F (note T8) and the row below begins at 1150F (note...
Application will be a food environment such as one would use a 316 or 304 steel in. Design temp is 300 F. No creep.
Must be compatible with 304/316. I'm looking for both a forging and plate application (SA-182 & SA-240?). It must be readily available due to small quantities and reasonable...
Engineering Tips Community,
I have an application for a Section VIII, Division 2 vessel using stainless. My background Div2 is carbon steel and I know that some of these are better than others for Division 2. What high-yield stainless steels are readily available for Div 2?
IdanPV,
I was out of town last week, so wasn't able to reply earlier.
As I read 47-5, you're going to need to have PE or equivalent in the loop if you're doing Div 2 fatigue analysis. To the best of my knowledge the only thing from Part 5 that doesn't require a Certifying Engineer is...
mk3223,
Fittings were NPT. The two major US mfgs of fittings are Penn Machine and Bonney Forge. They offer B16.11 half couplings AND MSS-SP-97 thread-o-lets (TOLs). Neither offered B16.11 boss connections for a recent project. It would have been convenient if I could have had a half...
ASME Community,
I ran into a situation recently where I wanted to use a B16.11 boss connection instead of a half coupling; however, the companies that supply fittings want to charge an obscene amount for them. I looked up boss connections in B16.11 and they're identical to half couplings with...
After digging through UW-16.1, it look's legal; however, I think they're going to have trouble with U-1(d) since a full-pen would have been an easy "addition"(ABSA lists full-pen as meeting the U-1(d) requirement).
I wonder if there is a weld requirement in 49 CFR 192?
All,
Today I had a situation where I was over-ridden regarding the use of a full-pen weld on a high pressure (6000 psig) nozzle versus a partial-penetration bevel weld with a small fillet weld on the opposing side. The computer program said a partial-pen weld was okay, so management decided to...
TGS4,
You're right about "read the Code", but I have to sympathize with people's eagerness to find out what's in #47. If the new Div 1 requirements are anything like the 2019 Div 2 ones, the designers & engineers who have the education and experience just got a boost to their street value...
SnTMan - I think we have two issues:
(1) My understanding is that you believe both flanges must be the same to get a benefit to the sealing. I believe only one flange needs to have greater rigidity, stiffness, etc. to benefit as the useable gasket width will increase and ASME should have taken...
TGS4 - One solution I have been considering is to create an Appendix 2 flange designed to mate with a particular class that has an equivalent geometry to the next higher class for purposes of UG-44. Specifically, a thicker flange can have increased resistance to flexing and thereby maintain...
I am designing a 54" Appendix 2 flange and am trying to size the fillet radius 'r' in Figure 2-4. My flange resembles the one in sketch 6 of 2-4. Note (3) at the end of Figure 2-4 says "Fillet radius r to be at least 0.25 g1...". My g1 is 4.75" thick, giving me a radius of 1.188". Yet in...
