API 662 Allowable Nozzle Loads for Plate and Frame Exchangers 1

[AgsMyDude]

Has anyone had success with flexibility analyses using API 662 Table 1 for general service allowable nozzle loads on plate and frame exchangers? The allowable loads appear to be extremely low and necessitate two expansion joints per nozzle (in different axes) even for moderate operating temperatures. Table 2 for severe service seems much more reasonable to me from a pipe stress analysis standpoint but I believe it is intended more for offshore applications and I've been having a bit of difficulty getting vendors on board with it.

Thanks in advance!

 

[1503-44]

Ditch the expansion joints and start adding elbows. Keep on doing it until the nozzle allowable stress work out.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[LittleInch]

Or add an anchor just beyond the nozzle and ignore the very small expansion.

See

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=512897

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[1503-44]

Ignore the high nozzle stress when the very small movements will not damage the equipment.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

 

[saplanti]

In case the the specification of plate heat exchanger was not passed on the vendor or the contract was finalised you have a chance to talk to project manager to be able to get the heat exchanger with the load requirements given in the Table 2.
If you cannot do thing above you need a very large space in front of the exchanger to reduce the loading by using required loop(s). It is not easy job from my experience, good luck.