Hello all!
Is anyone aware of online PDH courses that teach data science/analytics content such as SQL, Advanced Excel, or (better yet) R or Python programming?
Thanks!
P.S. if there's a better forum category for PDH-related items, please advise.
As someone who has seen my mom deal with chronic back/pelvis pain and over 20 back surgeries, I have witnessed what it can do to someone (though never pretending to fully understanding it myself).
I can't speak to the career side, but I definitely second the mental health side. Seek a...
Thank you everyone for all the comments! This is great information.
r6155, we never know the original measured thickness, just what's put on the U-1 as the nominal thickness (for shells) and minimum thickness (for heads).
We never have the original design calculations for air receivers.
Thanks
Sorry, let me clarify.
The ASME calculations say that the design thickness for the shell is 0.255" when the nominal thickness listed on the U-1 is 0.250". So the calculations say that it was built too thin.
I think this has been addressed previously, sort of, but I couldn't find my answer.
We evaluate pre-existing vessels (mechanical integrity, as they say) and frequently come across air receivers (ASME code stamped, NB#, etc.) that when we run thickness calculations, they are often at or below...
I've read this thread (thanks to JStephen):
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=140665
My concern is T1. I understand the concept of an atmospheric cylindrical tank having the static pressure (acting up) equaling the weight/area (acting down) and thus cancelling, which would leave the...
A clark,
I understand that. My question was about if the U-1 was supposed to indicate UW-11a5b.
Coincidentally, I came across a U-1 this morning that actually does list "UW-11(a)(5)(b)" in the additional remarks section. I've been operating under the assumption that if it doesn't say it, then...
So to revive this yet again, I have a related question.
After the fact, when you're looking at a pre-existing vessel and you have the U-1 Manufacturer's Data Report, is it supposed to indicate somewhere on the form that uw11a5b was satisfied and that the head JE can be taken as 1.0?
Thanks
If the title invokes in you some kind of reaction and makes you say to yourself, "what an idiot - let me tell this guy how wrong he is", please know that that was my intent as I often invite criticism in order to keep me on the right track. So fire away.
Anyhow, we have a client with an...
Thank you for the additional suggestions everybody.
They plan on going in these tanks every year and replacing/repairing the internal components, one of which they say is 4'-9" wide. We suggested they cut a slit or doorsheet, but they do not want to cut/weld every year, and want a more...
LittleInch, we suggested that, however the customer insists that they need 5' to provide access for repairs with large internal components.
I appreciate everyone's responses.
As the title says, we have a client who wants a 5' manway on the shell...
Now per 650, this wouldn't be a "manway" but would just be a 60" nozzle. Based on some catalog lookups, a flange/blind combo would be a minimum of ~3000 lb (for 75# flange and blind), at a minimum required offset distance...
Hello,
I'm staring at a U-1 that reads:
Shell: SA-264 20% Type 316 S/S on SA-285-C Backing, Nominal thickness 3/8 in.
My question, is it:
a) 20% of the 3/8 is clad, with an overall thickness of 3/8
or
b) 3/8" CS plus 20% clad, so an overall of 0.450", 0.075" of which is stainless clad...
Hello everyone,
For the last year we have been using AMETank for the evaluation of 620 tanks (we do inspection and mechanical integrity evaluations, so our main interest is minimum required thickness for shell and heads/roof/floors). Our 1 year license has expired, and we are evaluating whether...
Hey everybody,
I'm analyzing a horizontal vessel with a large (24") tangential nozzle that is throwing the Div. 2 deficiency, referencing 4.5.2 which says that if the ratio is greater than 1.5 then you need to design by analysis. Therefore I'm doing FEA - but I'm still getting high stresses...
Hello all,
In looking at this, I've found that 620 only includes "flush-type shell connections", which limits the opening height to 12" (side note - then in 5.27.1.2 states that having this connection limits the tank to 2 psig vapor pressure, less than the 650 max of 2.5 psig, so can this tank...
Thanks for the reply JStephen.
Do you know where I could find a copy of 6th Edition Appendix D? API doesn't have it (believe it or not), IHS doesn't have it, and Techstreet doesn't have it.
Thanks
