Search results for query: *

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...

GD2, 2019 Section VIII, Div 1.

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...

I have been issued orders from above to just tell the Customers to anchor their piping for zero loads on our flanges. I tried...

SnTMan - Thanks for the confirmation!

jtseng123 - agree with not using Appendix 2 to justify B16.5 flanges. Disagree about cost savings, especially when it comes to B16.47 sizes. Also keep in mind that any valves that bolt to the flange have to have the higher rating.

SnTMan, I'm assuming your new equipment is fabricated to the 2019 Code. My interpretation of Appendix 2 is that only one flange has to meet the rigidity requirements. Design your Appendix 2 flanges to mate with the older flanges. You just need to beef up the side towards the vessel while...

SnTMan - Is there a Code requirement for both flanges to be Appendix 2 to apply rigidity?

Appendix 2 flanges for replacement equipment.