SZX,
Also if you see code, preheating is required for thickness within range of 1.25 to 1.5in and above 1.5in PWHT is mandatory.
In compress as far i know there is no provision to consider Pre-heating for thickness within 1.25in to 1.5in.
Hence, it might be considering PWHT directly for...
Dear all,
Addition to all above information,Please see below:
ASME Section VIII Division 1 and ASME B16.5 do not include calculations to address standard flanges subject to loadings other than internal pressure and temperature. Therefore, in accordance with U-2(g), the Manufacturers subject...
Thank you very much guys.
So far from above i understand that SA 36 can be used for thickness over 5/8in for non stamped vessel.
Mjcronin,
Operating pressure is around 50 psig @ 160F.
Also Vessel ID=3m & length=9m.
metengr,
Thank you very much for your instant reply.
Quote:
"Since the vessel will not be stamped, it is not a code vessel. So, you are not required to follow Section VIII, Div 1. It becomes a contractual matter as to what you want to pick and chose for ASME Section VIII, Div 1."
Kindly refer...
Hey folk,
I was going thru UCS-6 & got stuck to it.
As per UCS-6 (b)(3), SA 36 (plate) can be used for pressure vessel provided thickness does not exceed 5/8in.
Question 1: Why code allows SA 36 only upto thickness of 16mm and why not more than 16mm?
What is the basis for setting limit to...
aard,
Refer interpretation VIII-1-83-302 which states to consider thickness for SS pipe as per ASME B36.10. Extract of same is attached for your reference
Also for pipes of size upto 8inch,ASME B36.19 & B36.10 gives same thicknesses for particular schedule...
For Sec I & III, i dont know.
But for Division VIII, you cannot go for allowable stress higher than that specified by code.
Better if you can share the loading for which you are apprehensive.
loilfan,
I think interpretation VIII-79-85 will answer all your queries.http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=07084a26-825d-4fcf-ac45-c5d46c61af96&file=Interpretation_VIII-79-85.pdf
Thank you all for your guidance.
Below is my understanding for checking / deciding corrugation dimensions:
In absence of stiffeners, unstiffened length would be same as length of tank (if corrugation is run along the length).
Considering unstiffened length (tank length), bending moment would...
In my understanding, moment of inertia of provided corrugation need to calculated and same shall be compared with required moment of inertia.
Or
corrugation dimensions shall be finalized on the basis of required moment of inertia.
Kindly suggest.
Dear All,
Can you edify me on design of corrugated rectangular tank. Earlier i have designed rectangular tank as per Roark's formulae.
But this time, it is corrugated tank : so per my understanding it would be difficult to add stiffeners on wall.
Thus, without stiffeners bending stresses...
DSB123,
Exactly, i do agree with you.
But i am not able to understand the reason for statement in Dennis Moss (See the attachment- Extract from Dennis Moss).
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=77d5b033-fdc3-420a-9658-99387db24efc&file=Extract_Dennis_R._Moss.pdf
After increasing thickness of components when I checked output for STS in pvelite, it is observed that still critical velocity for vortex shedding is less than the mean critical velocity.
To investigate further for the cause of failure, I checked ovalling frequency.
But I found that ovalling...
Further to above:
In Dennis Moss, Chapter 6: special designs, it says that Vortex shedding can be eliminated by introducing helical strakes upto top 1/3 portion of stack.
As per above, does it mean that by introducing strakes there is no need to check for vortex shedding.
If so than how to...
Hello everyone,
For stack, designed as per STS-1, i am in a situation that critical velocity is lower than design velocity.
So far i know by introducing helical strakes or other attachments, critical velocity can be increased.
But my question is how to evaluate critical velocity after...
