Hi All,
I have a question relating to a 900# RFLWN "Type V2" FVC forged flange (SA-182 F22 CL3 material) that is currently on a vessel in hydrogen & sour service (similar to the one pictured on page 11 here: http://www.forgedvesselconn.com/catalog030199_2.pdf ). Is it possible (perhaps...
Hi Morten,
I would specify the order desired - similar to how pivot tables work. I really am just looking to summarize information contained in a very large and detailed spreadsheet into a "management friendly" format. I know how to do this with a macro, but would prefer to work in the...
Hi all,
I have a large group of data basically organized by columns that I want to consolodate into a much smaller table on a separate worksheet. The smaller table would contain the same information as the larger table with the same format, but would exclude many unnecessary columns. I would...
Thanks to everyone for their input. Just for furhter clarification - the application is process piping designed to ASME B31.3 (attached to a section 8, div. 1 vessel). L-grade piping and flange materials are required for corrosion resistance to the process fluid.
There are a few instruments...
I'm hoping someone can verify my understanding of the pressure ratings of dual rated flanges ASME B16.5. I only have the 1996 ed. so bear with me on the paragraph numbers.
My understanding is that either of the applicable flange rating charts may be used (per paragraph 2.7 and 4.1.2(d)) as...
SnTMan,
After a few more calculations, I have concluded that the tabular values are not typos, but are approximately equal to the result obtained from the formula B = 2A/E (as described in Setp 5 when B is below the values given on the figure).
Thanks for the clarifications.
I am trying to work through UG-29(a) and have a couple of questions.
1) Assuming the vessel has multiple stiffening rings, are I and I' the moments of inertia for a single stiffening ring, or the sum of all stiffening ring inertias?
2) Similar to the above question, is As the total cross...
The vessel is certainly large (13' OD x 141' T-T), but IMO 5 saddles are unnecessary. It was a customer requirement and likely specified in order to reduce the structural steal per beam load.
As far as the dead weight, I have already estimated the distribution (based on assuming the vessel...
I am trying to apply a horizontal seismic / wind load to my vessel supports (vertical reaction load). Unfortunately, the only reference I have available is the Pressure Vessel Design Manual by Dennis Moss. Aside from the errors and non-existent derivation of equations, the outlined equation...
EJL,
UW-12(d) would apply for seamless shell sections would it not (JE = 0.85 for no RT)?
(d) Seamless vessel sections or heads shall be considered equivalent to welded parts of the same geometry in which all Category A welds are Type No. 1. For calculations involving circumferential stress...
I have another question regarding the joint efficiency of circumferential seams between shell sections (not seamless) when radiography is not performed. Since UW-11(a)(5) does not apply, is it accurate to say that the circ. seam between two shell sections (not seamless) is per Table UW-12(c)...
Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the typo in my first sentence (JE = 1 with spot RT & 0.85 without spot for seamless heads). I think I understand it now.
Thanks again!
jproj
UW-12(d) clearly specifies the joint efficiency for seamless heads with or without spot radiography (0.85). Does the code specify JE for seamed (e.g. two-piece) heads? It is my understanding that it depends on the RT performed on the head long seam(s).
For instance, if the 2-piece head long...
G. García,
I'm not sure how familiar you are with vessel design calculations, but The design pressure (minimum and maximum) must be initially used along with the design temperature (minimum and maximum) to determine the minimum thicknesses required. As we all know, calculated values are not...
That's pretty much what I expected (basic logic the way I look at it... 2+2=Y is the same as Y-2=2).
What still confuses me is why an AI would insist on new calc's using the MAWP as the DP when the current calc's (with the actual DP) already show the MAWP. Is this just an incompetent AI or...
Tom,
Thanks for the insight, your last paragraph on the nozzle MAWP was especially enlightening (particularly the part about prohibiting nozzles limiting the MAWP).
I understand that these are very detailed and lengthy calculations. If, however, the MAWP was determined, shouldn't all...
Thanks for the details, jt. I know I am making certain assumptions that do not necessarily apply to all cases... I didn't think about it until I read your reply, but it probably matters that our fabricator is using COMPRESS for their code calculations.
It is my understanding that (in...
chaulklate,
This is exactly what their AI said. Can you explain why the caluclations must be run twice? It doesn't make sense to me. Using the same equations to calculate different terms should give you the same result (if they don't I think we have bigger problems...).
The way I see it...
Thank you all for the responses.
Regarding concerns about the MAWP being much larger than the design pressure, it is a combination of several other design factors (full vacuum, allowable nozzle loads, MAWP limited by head / shell, etc.).
It seems like the consensus is in accordance with the...
Please elaborate. Per the last sentence of the MAWP definition (sorry if this is old, but I only have the 1995 edition to reference):
"The design pressure may be used in all cases in which calculations are not made to determine the maximum allowable working pressure"
In this case (as...
