Search results for query: *

I've stayed off this forum for a few years now, but a friend called my attention to this thread so... I'm back. I can't tell you that following B31.3 is better or worse than following PCC-2. To a large extent my thoughts revolve around more specific circumstances such as jurisdictional...

SnTMan already pointed to UG-37(h) which explicitly allows for two piece repads without 100% RT. However, unless A5 is decreased, the seam must not be less than 45° off the long axis. The weld seam can be transverse to the long axis (and from a hoop stress perspective this is optimal), but it...

To each his own. Perhaps if jbeckhou had added "...in my experience." I could agree with him/her. But, to state an absolute "never done" is incorrect. Since in my experience, it has been done, without excessive insanity, and with successful long runs after the modification. So, whatever. Just...

TankTheFrank- Are you perhaps thinking of VIII-1 Appendix 32? Specifically 32-6(h)?

Shanamo- The B16.5 rating is based on flange thickness, not groove dimensions. You could machine off the entire "ring groove height" area and you'd have a perfectly B16.5 compliant flat face flange. So, one option for you is to maintain that flange thickness dimension, machine the edges of the...

For those of you who, like me, have no idea what NR13 is... http://www.braziliannr.com/brazilian-regulatory-standards/nr13-boilers-and-pressure-vessels/

metengr - I'm curious as to your basis for the "unless" phrase in your statement above. Would it be UG-11(c)(3)(b)?

Glad this vessel isn't being built for my company. This design would violate our vessel standards in at least two three ways. If this happens to be a Section VIII Div. 1 vessel, then I find it interesting that we have carbon steel with, apparently, zero corrosion allowance being used. Makes a...

Nothing particularly surprising about a new construction code not dealing with issues after the U Stamp goes on. Section VIII covers nothing in terms of post-construction issues. As for procedures, metengr's guidance is hard to beat.

nickypaliwal- Welded Encapsulations are one of many topics addressed in ASME PCC-2 Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping Part 2. They're used commonly enough, and easy to fabricate out of materials readily available at most refineries and upstream facilities. Nothing secret or special about...

Interesting question... My approach would likely be to run an FEA. But perhaps a simpler way to look at it is that your length to diameter ratio is likely not going to matter. If you look at II-D Figure G for determining the A factor, you'll note that with a Do/T value of 50, the L/D has no...

Hi shrestha1- You'll likely get a better focused audience in forum378. I suggest you repost your query there, then use the red flag icon to report this thread for removal so you aren't cross-posting.

koshy- Strictly speaking, ASME PCC is a standard, not a code (the second "C" stands for "committee"). And PCC-2 covers nonmetallic repairs as one of several methods. It is a standard which provides guidance, but must be worked within jurisdictional requirements and must be consistent with the...

Caleb- Welcome to Eng-Tips! Consider adding a bit about yourself and your experience in your user profile. It helps in some cases to fine-tune a response. You can see my profile by clicking on my user name in this post. I'm curious as to which version of API 17D you are referring to. Looking it...

Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain, or simply Formulas for Stress and Strain by Roark if you have fourth edition or earlier, is a wonderful resource. But it should be recognized that at its heart it is not a text book covering basic principles but a compilation and simplification of results...

Well, ASME may be what metengr says above... I've heard a different version: ASME = Always, Sometimes, Maybe, Except Now, in addition to XL83NL's reference to B31.3, you could review ASME PCC-2 Part 1 paragraph 3.2. Which is a lot shorter than the B31.3 version. The definition for "should" is...

125-250 rms will be fine for most gaskets that are found in the oil business. No machining whatsoever? You'll probably have some leakage issues - to what extent is a function of the gasket, mill scale quality and quantity, and the quality of the horse manure used as the gasket material.

Minamtungekar- Thanks for closing the loop on your thread! That's a good practice that E-T could use more of! Now... it took you two and a half months for figure that out? [poke]

Sounds like a homework problem. What does your professor say about it? Also... since when was "kg" a unit of pressure?

Hi Bill- Stating things like code of construction and location (Jurisdictional rules can be important) are quite useful when posting questions. It seems that your query could be for an ASME Section VIII Division 1 pressure vessel. Maybe it's called a "tank", but probably not an atmospheric...