Search results for query: *

Ton thank you very much again for your precise explanation. The confusing part is the limit of -55F in UCS-66(b)(1)(b). But then I sit around all day pressing buttons hoping no one will ask me any questions. Is good to read the Code now and again, keeps you honest. So to sum it up my flange is...

Thanks again Tom In that link (last para) for the flange you state “…..If the "headroom" is sufficiently large, then the MDMT rating can go down to -155° F.” i’m not sure this is correct since this is restricted to -55F per UCS-66(b)(1)(b) as you state in this thread. It seems to me that you...

Great explanation thank Tom. Looks like I need to read this again. Also sorry the DT is 100F not 500F.

Design 180 psi @ 500F/-40F MDMT Shell and Heads SA516-70 impact tested Nozzle neck in question SA516-70 Curve B (no impacts). Flange 20” WN150# SA105 Curve B (no impacts). Neck thickness 1/2”. Corrosion allow 1/16" RT Full PWHT None I guess it would be easy if I had Compress but no longer have...

Thanks chevproe Initially that’s exactly what I thought but it didn’t make sense since (b)(1)(b) gives me -17F (reduced to -20F per UG-20(f)) compared to (b)(1)(c)which gives me -155F (limited to -55F per (b)(1)(a)). The nozzle is rated at -155F because the stress ratio is <0.35. The flange has...

Hello All I have a vessel just completed with MDMT @-40F. All components are either impacted tested or exempt. However we just noticed one SA105 150# WN flange does not have any impact test results. So now I’m looking at UCS-66(b)(1)(b) for exemption which is clear, using pressure ratio, but...

I believe the 1.5 multiplier comes from LP Zick which is the standard used by Compress. Not sure about PV Elite.

Could be TMAD Taylor and Gaines.

Better to have a larger clearance hole, say 1 3/8, then supply a loose square washer 1 1/8 x 3/8 thick for field welding.

Have you tried rerunning your pipe stress using the flexibilities from the FEA in order to reduce the loads? I find this works in about 90% of cases.

Just tell him that you're complying with API and everyone should be happy.

So I think what you are asking is how the out-of-roundness is measured? First draw the smallest circle that encloses the pipe shape. Then measure the distance from the circle to the inner most edge of the pipe shape. This distance is your deviation and should be less than 2% D or 1½% D as...

Sorry, I just noticed that the pipe is Sch 60 not the flange.

Assume you mean ...those identified as WF...? You said it looked like a slip-on but Sch 60 would imply otherwise. My guess is a weld neck. Out of interest why do you need to know?

What does it say on the stamping, assuming its stamped that is?

What does it say about flange rating and material, could be some clues there? It may be "wide face" aka flat face. Could be a AWWA slip-on which I think is flat face.

OK so the common sense rule applies here. Thanks again for your help.

Thanks prex. It makes sense that I can take credit for the hub but I still don't see any paper trail leading to sketch (6) unless I'm missing something.

I have a slip on flange which is out of spec and need to check against Appendix 2 of Div 1 Code. The flange conforms to sketch (8a) of Fig 2-4 and I would like to design it as an optional integral type flange. In general note (b) of Fig 2-4 it refers to sketch (7) for loads and dimensions...