Search results for query: *

Veneko, I can aggree with JStephen in that a WRC 107 approach is the way to go. Just a precaution in that your pads do not fall in the head nuckle area, but I expect you know this.

Mike, Thanks for your useful contribution. I also feel (gut) that B16.5 flanges will do the job, but will do the checks suggested. tothepoint, Helium is used as a product in a nuclear plant still in concept. doct9960, 316 SS is acceptable if designed to ASME VIII Div 1 or ASME 3 (section NH...

Doct9960 Helicoflex does not fall within B16.20, or any ASME code as far as I could gather. I have been in contact with Garlock's(manufacturer)technical staff, but they were only able to assist me in computing m and y factors for these seals, and not the flange calculations. They mentioned...

Do I accept a flange to B16.5 where a groove is machined in the raised face portion of the flange, not exceeding the depth of the raised face, or is it compulsary to design the flange to either ASME VIII Div 1 or 2. The groove is there to ensure that the seal is not crushed, but the mentioned...

Background: According to ASME VIII Div 1 UG-44, ASME B16.5 flanges is acceptable under Division 1 in accordance with requirements of UG-11 . According to ASME VIII Div 2 AD-711 , ASME B16.5 flanges is acceptable. In accordance with AM-105,1,such flanges and flanged fittings with exception of...

codeeng- the 6 months is better explained by jte. Jte, Thanks for the refference, I will have a look into this. If for example I start a vessel design in this year (2005)that state 2001 add 2002 as design code on the data sheet, may I use the latest software (CodeCalc, Compress, PV elite...

Hi, I would like to verify if there is a time constraint for fabrication of an pressure vessel after design, and where can I find this. According to me I am only allowed 6 months after a new addendum / code have been issued to design according to the older revision and that I am not allowed to...