Search results for query: *

Thanks EdStainless for shedding the light on this issue. Cheops

Thanks Marty. I agree with you that B16.5 should refer to A 182, not A 479. Classification under different material specifications has created a lot of confusion for a Fabricator I am working with. I hope this issue is addressd in the 2013 edition of the Code!

Can anyone explain the difference between SA-240 N08904 and SB-625 N08904? The first is listed as Austenitic Steel and it is NOT listed in the allowable stress tables of ASME Sec II table 1A. It is also NOT listed in table UHA-23. The second is listed as a non-ferrous material under both...

In my opinion, the interpretation covers the case of a full penetration weld between the nozzle neck and the shell. The pad does not necessarily have to be welded with full penetration. I realize that this is in conflict with UW-16.1(h) which indicates a minimum size of weld tc at the internal...

It is not a bug. See Interpretation VIII-1-86-89

The only way is to do it by trial and error. Even if you were outside Compress, you would have to look for the MAWP by trial and error

You will find useful information in Section IX paragraphs QW-202.6 and QW-193. The extent of qualification tests depends upon the criticality of the application. For critical applications (high pressure, highly corrosive, lethal or other dangerous fluids, high loads on the joint, etc... , it is...

vesselguy, You indicated that you attended the Online course by Dr. Mokhtarian. Do you actually listen to his voice or do you have to read the material? I am interested to attend, but only if I would listen to his course. If I have to read, then I may as well read the Code myself. Thanks,

Luiz, Does NR13 require compliance with ASME Code Section VIII Div. 1? Do you have to submit drawings to the authorities for a design review or acceptance? Can you indicate who should we contact to inquire about design review, inspection, certificaiton, etc... Many thanks.

ggroppi, ASME issues official interpretations. The question is submitted to a committee. Be prepared to wait a long time before you receive an answer.

Thanks, VeryPicky. Thanks, deanc. The info on HSBCT website is very good. Will contact the HSB regional offices to get more info. As for Europe, will contact one of the approved Inspection Agencies.

Hi. I am located in Canada. We need to ship a demonstration unit containing pressure vessels, to Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Brazil, Egypt, India, Algeria, and possibly other Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, etc...). Would anyone have information regarding the local regulations for design...

Your approach makes sense. It is a matter of interpretation. The Code does not address the tilted nozzles. In my many years of pressure vessel design, I did not see any calculation done the way you describe it. Probably nobody thought of it? One note: you need to make sure that the limits of...

Codecalc (by Coade) does

Arto, I don't have Kellogg handbook for piping(I am a Pressure Vessel guy). Does it use a factor of 8 or 16 when calculating the equivalent pressure ? Thanks.

Samuelliu, I have a copy of the first 2 pages of NC-3658, taken from the 2001 edition of the Code. When the moment (Mfd) includes dynamic loads, the factor of 8 can be used. But we are having an argument with the Authorized Inspector. The AI feels that section III methods are based on a higher...

I am looking for information covering the design of flanges subjected to external moments. Traditionally, an equivalent pressure was calculated using the formula: 16*M/(pi*G^3). But there has been some recent studies indicating that this is too conservative and that a factor of 8 would be...

As a reply to sect3: I would not stand next to a pressure vessel operating at its Max Allowable Working Pressure unless that vessel has already been hydro-tested at 1.3 times the MAWP. The hydro test covers for all uncertainties, whether it is a faulty design, a defective material, a defective...

Simply put: I would not stand next to a pressure vessel operating at its Max Allowable Working Pressure unless that vessel has already been hydro-tested at 1.3 times the MAWP. It is definitely primarily a proof test.

You need to seriously consider solution-annealing (heat to 1065°C then fast cooling. Because of the size of the head, cooling will have to be done by blowing air using strong fans so as to cool down the head from, say 900°C to 500°C in less than 30 minutes.