Search results for query: *

Thanks Tom. Obviously, I should have done a key word search, which would have saved us both a great deal of time. I did do a thread search but didn't see the ones you referenced. I appreciate your descriptive notes and I’m relieved with the fact that I’m not the only person who has been...

Firstly, I must apologize for asking multiple questions. If anyone has the time to respond, I would be most grateful! Can someone explain why the correction factor “F” in UG -37 is not mandatory? Also, if one inserts, say, a hill side nozzle (tangentially& integrally) into a cylindrical shell...

No PWHT required but, while on that subject. Don’t you think it strange that one has to qualify a procedure for PWHT when one already has an existing procedure in the un-PWHT condition for the same P number?( see QW 407.1) It appears to me that the physical properties would be more likely to...

Many thanks again DVWE! The base metal is SA 516-70 and I am planning to use ER80S-ni1 (GMAW) and a neutral flux 882 for the SAW process, regardless if UCS 67 (a) (1) applies in this particular case. I just think it makes sense to use a consumable rated for the MDMT stamped on the nameplate...

A pressure vessel MDMT is -50 degrees F . I am using curve (B) material and I am able to exempt charpy impacts by utilizing UCS 66 (b) (coincident Ratio) for head, shell, and nozzles. Reading UCS 67 (a) (1), it appears I do not have to qualify a WPS since the base metal is not required to be...

Thanks for speaking plain English DVWE! Regards to all.

Thanks Gentlemen! In this particular case, PWHT is not part of the fabrication cycle nor was the material required to be heat by the material specification. Therefore, the specimens are not required to be heat treated, right?

Can someone clarify UG 81 (f)(2) . Is it requiring all test plates regardless whether the actual vessel needs heat treatment to be heat treated prior to charpy. Or, is it saying ( which is my interpretation) that if the manufacturer determines that the vessel needs heat treatment, then the test...

VesselFab, I thought I clarified the terminology in my first response to Mike. Again, it’ similar to Type 1 style jacket, in fact it’s identical in everyway to a jacket except holes are in the “shell proper” to allow gases or fluids to communicate with the interior shell. And, for the record...

AND WHAT PREY TELL, ARE THOSE RULES? I don’t accept that the closure bar is a flat head!!!

Thanks Mike, My apologies for not using ASME terminology; I should have referred to the bustle as the outer jacket wall (tj) and the side bars as the closure members (tc). For clarity I am looking at Fig 9-5 skt (d-1). The AI believes that I should be using UG34 to establish the closure member...

Can anyone tell why I can't use Appendix IX of ASME VIII-I to establish the thickness for side bars of a bustle style configuration similar to a Type-I jacket. Also, can I use the weld sizing (Z) for the bustle to bar attachment and (Y) for bar to shell proper.Is the use of a single...

Now girls be nice. This is suppose to be a professional forum. Lets call it quits before we let ourselves down.. Have a good one…

Your response is typical and precisely why I believe the onus should be on the manufacturer of ASME pressure vessels to be responsible for all exploratory work in regard to the service requirements their vessel/s are operating in. I rest my case!!!!

I don’t want to be carrying the wood here. But I wonder where ABSA stand on a welded manway ring supplied as a UG-11 standard pressure part. As for the EEC’s PED requirement, I do like the onus been on the manufacture to do exploratory work when designing a vessel for the EU. Too many times...

I'm exploring re-certification per UG 10 for A1008 DS-b.

Does any one know why Sa 1008 DS-b is prohibited for ASME VIII-I construction.

Thanks to all who answered. I do see the Canadian point of view; however, since ASME have not addressed this issue head on. I have to believe ASME feel their is no justification for mandating an efficiency for a repad. Thanks again..

I should have said, If ASME wanted one to take an efficiency on a split repad wouldn't they have Answered ((A^5) x.65) to the above referenced interpretation.

Hello there, I see that Compress provides an option for an efficiency for a split repad, Section VIII-I construction. Since A^5 has no efficiency specified and interpretation file # BC90-404 asks "should the eff in A^1 be 70% if no RT is performed on the split repad" Answer "NO"...