Search results for query: *

metengr, thank you for your reply as well. I completely understand where you are coming from and totally agree. Unfortunately in my position I have people above me that want proof that I can not do it. That is why I brought up interpretations. I thought that would be my best bet.

SnTMan, thank you for your reply. The whole tube side including the channel would be replaced, excluding the tubes and tubesheet. The bundle, only used as an example, would be the least of my problems. This is a large unit and body flanges and channel covers would increase in thickness...

Hello all, Does anyone know if it is permissible, or an interpretation exists, for constructing a new part, a tube bundle for example, using an older edition of Section VIII Div. 1 for design? More or less for limited dimensions that would have to be met. If permissible, or such a code case...

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone is familiar with the terms "maximum working temperature" and "upper design temperature"? They are stated in a spec I am reviewing and I never seen those terms used before. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

vesselfab, Thanks for the reply. The heads are seamless, there is no RT performed, and the backing strip remains in place. UW-12(d) states 85% for type 3,4,5, or 6 joints and I am using a type 2. Am I just interpreting UW-12(d) wrong?

Hello All, For a shell and head (ellipsoidal) circumferential type 2 joint with no RT,why does Compress use a 85% joint efficiency? If I manually enter a user defined efficiency of 65%, the program states a required marking of RT4, assuming that I am using RT.

Thank you gr2vessels and Tomtation for your reply, both of you have been very helpful.

Hello all, Can anyone point me in the right direction about welding a coupling or small size nozzle to a skirt of a weld cap (if it is addressed and/or permissible at all) in Section VIII, Div. 1? My assumption is that it is not permissible, but I thought I would ask.

vesselfab: I have tried to back them off of the requirement with a large price adder, but they accepted the price with no hesitation. JoeTank: I am waiting for a response from the customer for use of production material. I agree with your statement as well. stanweld: In the customers spec...

There would be no PWHT.

That is a good idea ARENAS3. I will have to check with the customer, but using production material sounds more logical.

metengr, Thank you for your reply. The request was in the customers specifications. It reads, "As a minimum all PQR's for P1-P6 materials will include hardness readings of the weld deposits in, or converted to, BHN or HVN."

Hello All, I am currently on a project that the customer wants hardness testing done on existing PQR's. I have duplicated one of the original test coupons for a PQR, but I am having a hard time finding SA-285 Gr. C 3/8" thick for the second coupon, which was the original material and thickness...