The wording "should not be less than" seems to be there because normally allowable stresses are maximums you can not exceed. In this case, because we are designing the flange, the strategy is inverted when regarding bolt stresses. Bolts could theoretically be stressed to Sa, so your flange must...
1. I assume by averaging you are referring to (Am + Ab)/2. The fact that you are essentially taking Am and Ab, which is Am + extra_area, you end up designing your flange to withstand an additional stress: extra_area/2 * Sa. You are correct that it's not "consistent", but does it have to be?
2...
Understood. Then yes, UG-34 is a pathway. Just to note, often UG-34 requires thicknesses above those of B16.5 standard flanges, so it may not be sufficient based on your design pressure/temperature.
I don't have access to COMPRESS right now, but it may allow the calc if you remove the B16.5...
You should be concerned for creep at temps around 50% the melting point of the material.
However, as you have pointed out, allowable stress values already account for creep at these temps, and thus there is no code requirement for analysis for Div. 1 vessels. Creep analysis is only useful if...
Going off of "G" should give a fine result. Unless you have hundreds of these in a line, the minor thickness differences should be negligible.
Just don't forget to enable SIFs for socket welds as per ASME B31J (if applicable to your code):
Why do UG-34? Is this a custom blind? It looks like you could do a studded outlet with a standard B16.5 blind, in which case no UG-34 calc is needed (see UG-34(c)(1)).
As for your question, I assume you are confused by the joint efficiency. See UW-12(d):
I struggled to find work for months after I graduated. I had work experience from three student work positions, so I wasn't entirely green, but I still struggled. Two of the student positions were at sites that closed down, and the third was not hiring, so I entered the rat race of resumes and...
The least any inventor could do is a mockup CAD model. Autodesk has a program aptly named "Inventor" you can use for free (non-commercially).
Even if the dimensions are not "correct" without detailed analysis, a 3D model would get people to understand and appreciate the concept more.
I really like this. I tinkered with it a bit and was able to change out some colors too. Here's a green look to match the Eng-Tips icon
.p-nav {
background: #1e9646;
}
.block .block-minorHeader{
background: #1e9646;
}
.p-body-sidebar .block .block-minorHeader{
background: #1e9646...
I don't see anything inherently unethical in verifying an AI model as long as its training data was provided with consent and the verifiers are qualified.
I think people are right to question the use of the AI model after the fact though. It is up to the end user to act ethically, but that's...
Exactly. The side bar showing all my followed forums, each bolded when updated, was perfect. It was 1 click to get to new posts. Now I have to click 3 times, and cannot view a post while doing so — It's a new page each time, which adds 3 loading screens (which are also slower now, at least on my...
It sounds like you may want to transfer your data over to a spreadsheet. That way you can add the data for every LC and filter them as you see fit.
I don't know why exactly you want to exclude certain cases from the envelope. Non "control" cases like 0.6D±0.6W are for checking sliding and...
It sounds like you want to use "Batch Solution of Marked Combinations". This will solve all marked LCs, and it allows you to toggle between the filtered envelope and the entire LC batch:
You should have your own copy. That is more of a legal issue though depending on ANSYS terms of service.
Audits will usually look at the broad strokes of what you do. They may ask what software you use and leave it at that. I find client run audits will even ask for your validation of software...
Idan is absolutely right. Reading the code front to back, though not a bad idea, will not grow understanding, only familiarity. You should approach the code in context of problems needing answers.
Find somebody experienced with the code and ask them for a sample of the calculations for a vessel...
UW-11(a)(4) does not apply: the nozzle thickness does not exceed UW-11(a)(2), and is not attached to head and shells falling under UW-11(a)(1),(2) or (3).
UW-11(a)(5)(-b) states:
"Category B or C butt welds [but not including those in nozzles and communicating chambers except as required in...
Loading the very end of the beam is also worth checking, as that will maximize loading at the beam connection there. Personally, I would check the crane at the start, middle, and end of the beam. If things are broadly symmetric then checking at only one end and at the middle should suffice...
Here the documentation link, seems like the quick reference guide leaves out the joints: https://docs.hexagonppm.com/r/en-US/CAESAR-II-Users-Guide/Version-14/346179
