Search results for query: *

This material has been suggested for a valve body to service at -40F. ASME B16.34 will be used and it does not give pressure ratings below -20 F. Does anyone know the mechanicals at -40F or have any other information on its capabilities and how to rate it at that temperature? Thanks!!

I agree, except that UG-39 (c) and UG-39 (c)(1) direct me to App. 14 because of the large hole in the flat head. What else can I do but use App. 14?

Thanks for your reply. My shape is square square so in this case the spans are equal. Since the code directs me to use App.14 I don't see how I could use "Z".

I am designing a rectangular vessel according to App.13(in my case it is actually square). It has a flat integral head with an central round opening greater than 1/2 the shortest span. Reference to UG-39-(c)-(1) requires the head to be designed to App.14. App.14 does not recognize the...

Thanks!

I have Sec II Part D 2004 and do not find Inconel 718 (N07718) nor x750 (N07750) both of which would be SB637. I am interested in bar stock. Is this in the later editions? What I need is allowable stress at 100F and also the max temp. Any help will really be appreciated. Paul

ouch! Thanks

Thanks to all for your information.

Bob, thanks, and I will appreciate any information that you can provide on the wcb and cf8m. Baram & Valving: I will look into the offshore but my client is a smaller manufacturer and will mostly need smaller quantities and good delivery. The transit time can be a problem offshore. Also it is...

Thanks to all, I shall do that.

Is anyone willing to share the names of foundries that they know to produce quality valve body castings? WCB, CF8M and A395. USA only please.

Thanks for your thoughts. What I am having trouble with is that I do not see any mention of the Mandatory Appendices excluding flanged or standard class valves, or being only applicable to special classes. It is that word "Mandatory" that gets me.

In B16.34-2009 there are several Mandatory Appendices that deal with examination of castings, etc. The only reference, in the body of the standard, to these in in paragraph 8 (Special Class Valves). However, the appendicies do not reference this and their titles contain the word, "Mandatory"...

Nice listing of failure modes. Add to this, improper selection, and failure of the operator to maintain, service, and observe the valve. (Most valve failures are predictable, and therefore preventable. Operators will give their bicycles better maintenance than a valve.Okay so I exaggerated.)

Thanks to all for your comments. We will not sell a valve with flanges having a rating higher than the body rating. It is just asking for problems. It was good to see that the above comments generally agree with this practice. As to B16.34 2.1.1(g)this does agree with this what I have said...

I agree with anegri and would add to look at ASME B16.34 (para. 7.2 which states in part, not less than 110% of the 100F rating, or a gas test at not less than 80psi. (You need to read the entire section.)

The subject has come up about placing a flange on a valve or fitting wherein the flange has a higher class rating than the valve or fitting body. My position is simply that this is not to be done. However, I thought that I had once seen this published in a standard, but I do not see it in...

I am considering using a disc of SB271 C95400 M02 that will require a shaft perpendicular to the disc. This is a valve application and will be the poppet or internal closure element. ASME Sec II D listed. I can cast the entire part. Alternatively I could consider using a barstock piece to join...

Great replies to both of you. Thanks for taking the time

What is the difference in ASTM A395 vs A536 60-45-12? Specifically I am interested in why one over the other (irregardless of the small increase in strength). My interest is in valve or fittings. I know that A395 is very commonly used and elevated temp data is also available, but not so for...