Search results for query: *

Thanks guys, I thought I was confused, now I am just not sure of the level of confusion I am at. I can't help but feel that it might be clearer if a body (ASME/ANSI?) were to write a standard stating what each fitting would meet, eg sch 40 fitting will suit same limits of a sch 40 pipe (could...

Cheers augern, Having read section 2.2 of B16.9 I now know that to understand what the fitting's wall thicknesses should be I have to establish the value from the designer's calcs; simply reading across from straight pipe is risky. Another option would be to get them recalculated, as we might...

Thanks XL83NL, No problem, so if the fittings have a wall section = B36.19 sch40 design min wall thickness PLUS 25%, they meet design? Jackdaniels. When theory and practical don't agree, it's the theory that's wrong!

@4Pipes - all the tolerances seem to position a welding joint from the elbow centre-line etc, or have data for wall thickness only where the welding joint is... similar with the tee-sections. I think you are correct on the burst tests, but i have even less information on this!!! @XL83NL: So if...

Great response guys, thanks. Section 2.1 of the ASME B16.9 actually states 'The allowable pressure ratings for fittings designed in accordance with this Standard may be calculated as for straight seamless pipe of equivalent material...'. So I am progressing - without original design cals...

Cheers, SNORGY I have no original design calcs to check thru, hence my quandry. Couldn't help but think that 'loading' might be increased by any effects of the fluid 'going round the bend' as opposed to a straight piece of pipe section. But aside from erosion/corrosion in some tee-sections, we...

HELP PLEASE !! I am reviewing some unfamiliar plant equipment and am using the P&IDs to help me find my way around that part of the plant. These drawings show ASME/ANSI B36.19 schedule 40 pipework is specified, albeit at at varying diameters. Whilst not being the main focus of my review, I am...

IK Brunel, I have had absolute success using capacitance gauges for the precision and accuracy that you might need. The gauges can be as this as 0.10 mm fixed to measuring equipment or wands. I know capacitec inc have a bore diameter checker - they might be a useful contact. Cheers,

I fully agree with PSE. My experience, although not on large items such as those indicated, is that it is always preferable to understand the process capability than isolated samples of the process. I also agree with the 'golden' job - this is watched by all and sundry, so everyone works exactly...

Hi all, I am trying to replace an inspection rig that digitally captures the image of a metal surface for visual inspection of a very thin corrosion product. The product has been introduced uniformly to confirm the material has no contamination from previous production processes. Is there...

I always consider precision to be how close the measurement readings are to the true value. In addition I consider accuracy to be the range of readings obtained by repeating measurements by the same operator on the same instrument and the same part (which may be far from close to the true...

Thanks, Don039 and dgallagher. I'll investigate these links you have provided. Must admit I hadn't thought of Eddy Current, probably due to the small area a probe would have to be placed or travel in. My experience of Eddy Current has always been for an external use, not the void inbetween, so...

I am trying to measure a 2mm gap (between metal panels)at five positions across its 50mm breadth. The horizontal gap is around 1500mm in length and I need around 500 readings from this length. The accuracy + precision needs to be within 0.010mm. I have attempted to use strain gauge technology...