Thanks for your help. Unfortunately, I can't change the material at this stage (budget quote). I tried to suggest alternates, but the customer is not interested at this time.
I am trying to design a TEMA BEM fixed tubesheet exchanger per ASME Sec. VIII, Div.1 with the following criteria:
Design Temp. = 1150°F
Metallurgy = 1 1/4Cr - 1/2Mo [plate (SA-387-11 Cls. 2), tubes (SA-213-T11), & Forgings (SA-182-F11 Cls 2)]
The problem I am running into is trying to...
You are not going to readily find a SA-105-N HIC forging. What we normally use for vessels with HIC requirements is to use SA-350-LF2 Cls. 1 forgings instead. This is a low temp qualified forging with near identical chemistry to SA-105-N, but the chemistry control and testing is more suited...
Sorry, I forgot to mention the tubes will be roll expanded after welding. Thanks for the help. Guess we have no way out of this one without the qualification testing.
This question pertains to seal welding of tube-to-tubesheet joints per ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1.
Does anyone know if App. A is required for seal welded tubes, since they are not covered by UW-20?
In my particular case, I have 2205 Duplex Tubes seal welded to SA-516-70N Tubesheets (Fixed TS...
What code are you using for your calculations. The ones I use (ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1 or TEMA) are dependent on all those factors. Can you provide a little more detail?
Yes, refer to ASME Section VIII, Div. 1, Part UW ("UW-20 Tube-to-Tubesheet Welds", to be exact). You might also look at non-mandatory App. A (also in Sec. VIII).
Hope this helps
I agree with curtis2004, if it is not code stamped, you wont need a repair or alteration stamp. I am concerned however, that you asked about stress relief in the same query. Is the original vessel PWHT?. If so, you cannot make any further weld attachments to the vessel w/o subsequent heat...
To answer the first question, if the vessel is not stamped then it technically does not have to follow the requirements of Sec. VII, Div. 1, thus you should be able to weld non-load bearing attachments w/o hydrotest per ASME code.
That being said, you need to be sure and comply with local...
I would do just that Mandeep1, unfortunately the examples in UHX were never updated to A09 (quite irresponsible in my opinion, but I'm not on the Code committee). The best I can think to do is verify against PVElite as well as BJAC and see if the results match.
Thanks for the help.
The question of whether it is sufficient depends on many factors. The more critical the service of the pipe (how dangerous if failure occurs) certainly plays a role. A history of in service failures (if available) at the weld seam would also indicate need for higher levels of NDE during new...
The latest ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1 2007 (A09) became mandatory in January, including the moderately revised UHX tubesheet calculations. This is also the year our company is re-evaluated to maintain our code stamps, so we must verify our software by a separate means (we currently use BJAC, which...
As many of you know, the latest ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 1 2007 (A09) became mandatory in January, including the moderately revised UHX tubesheet calculations. This is also the year our company is re-evaluated to maintain our code stamps, so we must verify our software by a separate means (we...
